[MD] [Bulk] Re: Humanism

[John Carl]

 First it's Ian, now I'm being attributed as  Horse, gee,  it's just been a
week for me, havin' my words construed to others.   I think I'm gonna take
it as a compliment, even though its probably not! .

The interesting thing is that I noticed a few weeks ago, that it's these two
individuals who no longer show up in my MD in-box.  That can only be by
design and that I do not take as a compliment, so it's sorta i-ron-ick.


On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:00 PM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

Horse: (who's actually John in this instance)
> 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.
>
>
> Ron:
> I think once the good was reflected apon, intellectually, intellect
> becomes a force for evolution.
>

John:

Yes, I agree.  Intellect is especially good for negation - analyzing why
ideas are bad or whether they'll work or not.  Testing the hypothesis, as it
were.  But the special thing that happens in human affairs, the transcendant
jump, is definitely non-intellectual.   I think there's an aesthetic that
compels independent of intellect, and I think that is the highest and best
accomplishment of human mentation.


Ron:


> I think the understanding of the term used for the fourth level
> is anchored in the understanding of the expansion of rationality.
> Analytics is an aestetic, a value, and in this way, intellect is
> a higher form of evolution.
>
>
John:

Well like I said, if you want to use some special terminology where the
meaning of the word "intellect" is redefined, then you have to add that
caveat to each and every use of the term when you're talking to normal
people so they don't get confused.  Wouldn't it be better to just rename the
level, once and for all?    The human brain has two halves - an intellectual
half and an aesthetic half.  That's not only common sense, it's also
biology.  Classic/Romantic = Intellectual/Artistic.  Platt said something
about a 5th level, but I think 4 is better.  The 4th just needs to be
recognized and labeled appropriately as intrinsically dyadic, so that the
artistic-intuitive half of human mentation is given its  proper place.  I
understand that you think an expandend rationality can encompass the
romantic, but couldn't we just as easily (and more aptly) expand art to
include rationality and use that label?  It's the bleedin' bleeding edge of
existence, for cripes sake.  Give it its due.


John  (or Ian, or Horse or whoever you wanna call me.  I don't care, just as
long as you call me :-)