[MD] reifying carrots

[ridgecoyote at gmail.com]

Ian,

The only real definition of intellectualism that I know, presupposes the subject/object split.   Which is why I prefer rationality to intellect, both as a label for the 4th level , and as an explanatory term for the process by which we transcend SOM.  I could go on and on about the difference between rational and intellectual, but the key and important difference is that rationality encompasses art and science both - the classic and the romantic , whereas intellect signifies classic science only. 




Sent from my iPhone

On May 2, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:

> DMB says
> (in response to Marsha reminding us - yet again, for some reason - of
> the limits of intellectual concepts ...)
> "That is profoundly anti-intellectual. If conceptualization is equated
> with reification, then ALL static patterns are wrong and intellect can
> never escape from SOM."
> 
> Weird - but I just see the two of you violently agreeing again.
> 
> It doesn't say "intellect" is necessarily bound by SOMism it says
> intellectual patterns (of reified concepts) are bounded by SOM.
> 
> This seems to be a MoQish truism to me. In fact it's that sticking
> point with Bo's SOLAQI that I could never get through to him (or you).
> We're just arguing about what definition of intellect we're using.
> 
> We can choose to define an evolving MoQish intellect as more than the
> sum of its static intellectual conceptual patterns - indeed we must.
> (ie it includes all those Jamesian radical empirical processes too.)
> 
> It's OK to be anti-SOMish-intellect.
> It's not OK to be anti-a-more-enlightened-MoQish-intellect.
> (whether you / we call it intellect or not.)
> Ian
> 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