[MD] Step One

[John Carl]

Good morning, Dan.  I feel rested and ready, which is good.  You have
offered me a lot of response here and I appreciate the effort.  And
projecting a bit, I feel you're pain!

I mean, you only have to deal with me on occasion, imagine what it's like
for me.

Thanks for bringing out the dictionary.  I love dictionaries!  Let's go over
this one and find what wonderful stories it tells:

Intellect:

1. the power or faculty of the mind by which one knows or understands,
>

There's more, of course, but I, like you claim to be, am a simple man.  I
say let's just go with that - right out of the box, the numero uno example
of "intellect" in other words is "the power or faculty of the mind by which
one knows or understands."

Entirely predicated upon a certain metaphysical stance, of self/knower and
something called "understanding".  We don't have to define it completely
because after all, we know what it is - the common way we all get around in
the world - we use a subject/object metaphysics all the time.



> as distinguished from that by which one feels and that by which one
> wills;


Yes.  There is a part us, a part that really doesn't care.  It just thinks.
 Intellect designates this aspect of human mentation.  I agree completely
with the dictionary.
Intellect - non-feeling, non-willing, intellect.


the understanding; the faculty of thinking and acquiring
> knowledge.
> 2. capacity for thinking and acquiring knowledge, esp. of a high or
> complex order; mental capacity.
> 3. a particular mind or intelligence, esp. of a high order.
> 4. a person possessing a great capacity for thought and knowledge.
> 5. minds collectively, as of a number of persons or the persons themselves.
>
> Where does it say anything about subject/object metaphysics?
>


You could squeak out of it with number 5, dan.  But the rest of them contain
SOM as the fundaments of meaning.  You shoulda stayed awake through some of
those philosophy books or discussions but they're all dependent upon the
assumption of a distinct self/other relation.   They assume SOM for their
very meanings.

However, the 5th one leaves enough wiggle room for intellect to be
completely dependent upon SOM.  For "minds collectively" contain the gamut
of human patterns of thinking, and thus is inclusive enough for our purposes
here - using it as a label for the ultimate and highest aspect of
evolutionary reality - the intellectual level- which gives it enough leeway
to hold both the romantic and classic aspects of what really is, the highest
human reasoning - art that makes sense, and science that isn't ugly.



>
> And for the record, Bo was NOT ostracized or rebuked for a dozen years
> or more. But for Christ's sake, when is enough enough? We couldn't
> hold a proper discussion without Bo barging in, claiming what idiots
> we all were for not seeing the intellect as SOM. Go back and read the
> archives if you don't believe me. And again, he left the discussion of
> his own accord. No one banned him.
>
>
Ok.  Admittedly.  Bo wasn't making much progress, and I think a reset can be
good for anyone, at the right times.      I would assume hopefully that if
Bo tried to rejoin, he would be allowed.  But whether he does or not, he
pointed out something about the MoQ that is important to discuss.  For one
thing, it's not just Bo.  As you point out, he did have his supporters.


  To see if we have basic

> > understanding there.  Before moving on.
>
> Dan:
>
> The intellectual level is just thinking, plain and simple. You know that,
> John.
>
>
Refer back to the dictionary, dan.  Non-feeling, non-willing.


I think the term you're looking for rather is "reason"  sweet reason,
"knowledge tempered with caring",  ed abbey defines it.



Dan:
>
> Well, David Buchanan and me go way back too. I think we both joined
> the old Lila Squad discussion group around the same time in 1998. I
> value his input highly. So it puzzles me when you disparage him the
> way you do. I suppose it must be something about his style that
> bothers you.
>
> I can think of three main issues I got with dave. There's a bit of a back
story there-  It's all in the archives.  btw, I'd joined MD back then, dan.
 I'd remembered both you and dave vaguely but with good feelings.  I dropped
out that time because it was when my daughter drowned and I sorta just
drifted away from everything outside of my family.

Issue number one came when  I rejoined later, with a real good friend of
mine, Steve Marquis,  who lives just down the street from me and I've known
for 37 years...  anyway, bitter feelings arose and Steve and I ended up not
speaking for a very long time.  It just so happened that dmb's opinion of
me, before he even knew me, had a very bad and far-reaching effect on our
friendship.

That issue has faded because I'm seeing Steve again and I can't really take
something personal when dave didn't even know me.
 hey, he didn't really know me.  He's an asshole to lots of people.

Which I guess is issue #2, and issue #3 is that dmb has desired my exclusion
from this list for a long, long time and made it very clear how little he
likes or respects me.

So part of my solution has been to needle him even more.

Ok, so I'm not real smart sometimes.  I admit it.

But geez, it's just so much fun I can't resist.


 Getting old is a pain in the ass but what alternative is
> there?
>
>

I can think of two.  Dying and getting younger.




> > However, one can only go so far down that path, as an individual.  In
> order
> > for there to be meaning, congruence and harmony, there must be
> relationship
> > balanced in otherness.
>
> Dan:
>
> It is not just something inside of me. It is inside us all. There is
> only consciousness.
>
>
Right.  Hmmm... "relationship balanced in perception of otherness" is
consciousness.  Works for me.

I always appreciate these nifty and usable metaphysical formulations.


>
> Dan:
>
> As I said, I find it helpful to remind myself that there are many here
> who rarely contribute yet read all the posts. I don't know the actual
> numbers but i would guess at any time there are 10 to 1 when it comes
> to  lurkers vs. actual contributors. I lurk for long periods of time
> myself, sometimes for years.
>
>

Lurkers... shivers...


> Dan:
> There are very few places where a person can find a half-way
> intelligent conversation and this is one of them. It is basically an
> open forum until someone abuses that privilege. I see Ham worrying
> himself that he will be censored but that will never happen as long as
> he plays by the rules, even loosely... at least historically that has
> been the case.
>
>
I always smile to myself when I see Ham, or Platt for that matter, talk
about being banned.


> >  I just do.  Whether you like me or not, I just do.  And ain't nuthin'
> you
> > can do about that.
>
> Dan:
> Well, thank you John. That is gratifying to hear. But as I say, I am
> no expert nor would I ever pretend to be. Others can claim that
> status; it's okay with me. I just write. That's all. And it pleases me
> when someone finds some value there.
>
> And don't let my harsh words lead to to believe that I don't value our
> interactions. I like you very much and value our friendship. What is
> that old saying... we hurt most those we love...
>
> Thank you
>
> Dan



And thank you, Dan.  It's always good to hear so much from an old lurker.

John