[MD] [Bulk] Re: Humanism

[John Carl]

Mark,

I think you make a couple of important points:



> [Mark]
> Intellect is a tough one, I would say that the discussion of intellectual
> ideas requires SOM. I believe this is Marsha's point.  Symbol manipulation
> requires symbols.
>
>
John:

First, intellect IS a tough one.  Unlike some people, who seem to expect
RMP's words to be some sort of holy writ that can't be challenged, I think
the fact that this one is a toughie, ought to encourage us to look at it
more deeply and examine it more thoroughly.  Help him out, so to speak.

Second, I agree with Arlo that SOM != Intellect. For one thing, it says
right on the label, "metaphysics"  and obviously intellectuals create
metaphysical systems, but not all metaphysical systems are intellectual.
But I do also agree with "Bo's many" that Intellect is dependent upon SOM.
Unless you want to carve off the term "intellect" and turn it into some
private-language meaning that only a limited few comprehend, you have to
take the dictionary definition of intellect and that is heartless reason,
and admit that it comes directly from a worldview of analytical cogito-ers,
ergo-ily  summing it all up in their heads.

My particular point, furthermore, is that intellect cannot be the highest
aspiration of evolutionary development.  The dictionary definition of
intellect, is non-artistic, for one thing.  It refers to a specific branch
of human cognition that operates rationally by rules and analysis.  Not at
all adequate for a label for the 4th level, imo.


peace, man,

John