[MD] [Bulk] Re: Humanism

[Platt Holden]

John C,

Great post. Thanks.

Platt

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:35 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>