[MD] Intellectual Level

[MarshaV]

On Sep 5, 2010, at 9:16 PM, John Carl wrote:

> Hi Marsha, thanks for the chance to pointificate.
> 
> On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 1:07 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> I do not agree.  Intelligence is a species of art, but I do not see
>> intelligence
>> the same a intellect/intellectual.  I understand intelligence as something
>> like:
>> 
>>      Intelligence:
>>      The skillful use of whatever patterns (organic, biological, social &
>> intellectual)
>>      a given situation requires, or possibly to use no pattern, the truly
>> dynamic,
>>      if nothing else is suitable.
> 
> 
> 
> I use the term differently, myself.  For me, intelligence is the cleavage
> between inorganic and organic, and intellect is the cleavage between social
> and the fourth level.  Intellect is the kindergarten of the fourth level.
> This is important to my understanding because it ties in realistically with
> the levels.  What is life but that which exhibits intelligence?  Even an
> amoeba is smart enough to come in out of the acid, as opposed to lumps of
> matter which just lay there and take dissolution.  That's what I term
> "intelligence".
> 
> But when objects are conceptualized, we enter the realm of intellect and
> reifying these conceptualizations I'd call SOM, the kindergarten of
> intellectualism and the position "no serious thinker holds for long."

Greetings John,

When a physicists state that a photon is 'real', what do you think 
they mean?  Or when someone states a gravity is 'real'. what do 
they mean?  I've even heard a physicist state that particle spin in 
not just a mathematical equation, but is something 'real'.  I believe 
this - photon, gravity, particle spin - is suppose to represent something 
having independent existence in an external world.  But what has 
happened is a conceptual construct has been analyzed into real 
object.

If by "no serious thinker" you mean you and I, well then, okay...  


Marsha  




> 
> But of course, all this is my own private interpretation.  I stick to it
> only til I find something better.
> 
> 
> Intellectual patterns offer the most freedom and that is a good thing, but
>> intellectually patterns harbor a big flaw: they do not understand Quality.
>> 
>> 
> 
> Right.  To perceive Quality requires consciousness. I think it makes sense
> to define consciousness as "that which percieves Quality" and recognize it
> as a continuum extending mysteriously.  I don't concieve consciousness as a
> pattern, that sounds reductionistic.  I see consciousness as that which
> perceives patterns, in a creative way.
> 
> Thanks marsha,
> 
> 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


 
___