[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[118]

[Tim]
> I know you have suggested some homework for me regarding this term
> 'analogy', I'll get to it.  But let me ask: am I too an analogy?
>

[Mark]
Good question.  I could give you the simple answer which would be that you
are an analogy to me based on what I read from you, but you cannot be an
analogy to yourself.  The way that I use the term analogy is to provide the
awareness that what we create with words are a description of things but are
not the actual things themselves.  Plato is better at describing this than
I.

We can create analogies for truth as complex as we want, but are still only
left with the descriptions.  Such descriptions are self-referential because
they are created by the mind.  "A" lead to "B", therefore "B" is a result of
"A".  For me it is important to recognize the descriptive sense of things
and not pretend that there is more to them than that, or it is easy to get
stuck and righteous.  There are of course meaningful descriptions, science
is full of them, but such description are floating in the mind, and simply
point towards something and create awareness. Descriptive understanding is
useful for agreement and conversation, and in the end unity, and is a basis
for sharing awarenesses.  It also just as readily leads to polarization
because some believe there is Truth associated with them, which is dictated
from somewhere outside the mind and therefore compelling.

So, my suggestion is to free up your mind from some hardened premises and
ask questions.  The end result is to provide yourself with something
meaningful that you can believe in.  This does not bring in the terms
relative, or conditional.  It is deeper than that, it is you.

>
> > >
>
> [Tim]
> I would say that IQ tests address a very limited set of problems, and
> thus may not be of very high value.  But if intelligence is more complex
> than problems, solutions, and truth, what else comprises it?
>

[Mark]
Sounds like set theory to me.  Intelligence is interactive and ever
changing, it cannot be isolated and boxed up.  It is as much a product of
what is outside the brain as what is inside.  If I were to use the
springboard as an analogy, intelligence would be how tight the springs are
which allow one to jump higher. You always come down of course, but its fun.
 This is of course a soft description only to get you jumping.

>
> >
> [Tim]
> I'm fine with intelligence arising of Quality.  And I'm fine with it
> being left in the wake of Quality.  I'm even cool with saying that
> intelligence is quality, though perhaps not the entirety of quality.
> But this term 'analogy' is bothering me; let me do my homework.  But if
> you can help me find the material that would help.
>

[Mark]
I'm sure wikipedia has got something to say, but I tend to stay away from
it, just because I have to set limits somewhere.  Check out how the term is
used in ZMM.

All my personal opinion, of course.
Happy reading.
Mark