Bobby Dillon and Richard Budd.
Bobby Dillon wrote:
> MF Intellect and Intellegence
> >In short, define the intellectual level.
> Intellect is that faculty of a person that organises and brings order
> and stability to the structure of beliefs ( static patterns ) of that
> person by establishing and reestablishing the interrelation and
> hierarchy in which the belief/s identified as having the highest value
> or priority dominate or even discard the beliefs of a lower value by
> making them subservient to the highest belief. At an advanced stage it
> generates new beliefs or modifies existing beliefs by exploring,
> exposing and thereby transcending the limitations of older beliefs.
> Intellect starts by first establishing a basic static order that
> provides for the functional requirement of stability and survival and
> then advances by breaking free from that static order into a dynamic
> order in which the hierarchy of the structure dissolves.The values and
> priorities of beliefs are replaced with VALIDITY of beliefs and
> counterbeliefs. Validity contains in it both values and
> morals.Intellect that remains stuck in a static order (fixed beliefs)
> eventually degenerates.
Have we met before? (I am away from my regular computer)
Anyway welcome. It's refreshing to have a new approach to MOQ's
enigmatic level. Yours is a bit complicated but stripped down to
rock bottom I think it is something I can subscribe to.
There must be some underlying "pattern" to the Quality evolution,
something that goes for Intellect must go for all the lower levels. Do
I understand you correctly if you say that "Structure of beliefs" is
your name for all the various Q-levels we call? That the "beliefs" of
the biological level "transcended the limitations" of the older
inorganic belief, or is the belief concept something you solely
ascribe to Intellect? If the latter I see some trouble because
"beliefs" are something we may attribute to the Q-social level too -
usually called superstition.
> >Are intelligence and intellectual value the same thing ?
> Not quite.Intellegence is the sum of intellect and the DISTINCT
> FACULTY for spontaneously generating experiences ,responses, solutions
> and beliefs from the abstract or from dynamic reality.
This was a deep one Bobby, may I try to strain it through my own
mesh? When we - humankind - regard (what we as somists from
intellect call the animal kingdom) we marvel over sense refinement,
but when it comes to social behaviour we stall: this is instincts, not
true intelligence. As moqists, however - where intellect is another
level and our vantage point is slightly "beyond" intellect - the
picture is clear. "Intelligence" is all Q-levels - included Q-Intellect!
Your "distinct faculty....etc" is this new beyond perspective.
(I wince at the "abstract" term because it implies the dreaded
> Intellegence is closely related to Quality . If a Metaphysical
> split is made of Intellegence one way to do it can be by saying
> that Intellegence is a Quality that has two components :
Everything is (closely related to) Quality.
> Known Quality and Unknown Quality
Or static and dynamic....?
> Reason deals with known quality and the counterpart of reason
> accesses unknown quality. Known quality can be quantified by
> say IQ tests and other procedures but unknown quality cannot be
> quantified and therefore cannot be scientifically tested or proven.
> The source of known quality is through the sensory systems , the
> source of unknown quality is essentially unknown and perhaps
"The source of known quality is through the senses" is true
because it starts at the Biological level and follows evolution from
then on, but if you see known in the "aware" or "consciousness"
light ......??? ....you have lost me. ;-)
> Intellect starts from the point of reason - its foundation is reason.
Yes, and yes again.
> Experience then time and again reminds the self that there is a
> counterpart to reason.The force of general agreement obliterates the
> operation of the counterpart of reason and that explains why there is
> no name as yet given to this counterpart of reason. For lack of a
> better word, the word 'abstract'comes closest. The operation of the
> abstract faculties of man manifests in art , religion (originators
> of),poetry , music , extra-sensory perception ( or more appropriately
> - Non-sensory perception ).
Or extra-sensory....Interesting, we must discuss that some day.
> ( Reason says its all nonsense ) Anyhow,
> intellect senses that there is more to this world than known quality
> and strives to move towards that bridge that connects the two. On this
> bridge rests quality, intellegence, morals and values. Chunks, bits
> and pieces of unknown quality are accessed apperently at random that
> result in insights and revelations. Reason goes to work on these and
> dissects and breaks up these further by giving them form in terms of
> language, symbols , beliefs etc.and assigns them a place in its
> structure. There is however no well known and tested procedure to
> reach to this bridge except the unbending will of an individual to do
> so.This bridge can also be approached from the
This sounds like Intellect (or reason) vs "abstraction" (dynamic
quality?) but IMHO Intellect's only concern is directed downwards.
All levels' energy is spent on controlling the one below. any
development above itself they are blind to.
> >Why should intellectual level values prevail over social level
> Not why but when . When intellectual level values can produce results
> in terms of demonstrating a better quality of life.
> >Of all the levels, the one that seems to create the most confusion or
> appear most obscure is the intellectual level.
> >What exactly is it? What are its values? What are its goals? How does
> it manifest itself?
> It seeks to understand, explain and organise everything in the
> perception of man.
> The social goal of intellect is to bring order and stability by
> convincing and dominating society by demonstrating a superior belief
> management system. It seeks the highest moral and the highest value to
> do so. Eventually it may give up this dominating tendency if at all a
> stable dynamic order has been attained - for then there would be no
> need for domination. It seeks a perfect order in the social and
> political affairs of man.
It seeks to see experience through its own bifocal subject/object
glasses. This have reverberations at the social level, but I don't
know if Intellect really seeks "order and stability" for the sake of
order and stability. Democracy is from Intellect's p.o.v. the best
rule 'in the social and political affairs of man', but in times of
emergency (war for instance) it's values blows away as chaff in the
wind and "society" returns to martial law, death penalty etc. That
is: Order is most efficiently brought about by something much
Richard Budd wrote:
> > BO:
> > I agree ....to a point...and bear with me Rick while I try to keep
> > all the balls - as well as the board - in the air simultaneously?
> > The terms intellect and intelligence denotes two different things -
> > moqwise seen, but Intellect (as SOM) never got those two sorted out,
> > the spectre of "awareness" got into the way. Animals may display all
> > sorts of abilities (just heard about an octopus who knew how to open
> > screw lids of jars!), but they are "machines" programmed by
> > instincts, not to speak of machines/computers that are just
> > dispensers of zeros and ones....blah, blah, the SOM- sayers go on.
> I like this last part about animals and machines... they behave "as
> if" they had an Intellect. Have you ever read anything by the
> philosopher Jon Searle? He talks at length about this sort of fallacy
> (attributing intelligence to things that behave "as if" they were
No, I haven't regrettably. After this mailing list started I have turned
quite "illiterate" bookwise.
> > We must regard the pre-moq world as a reality where Intellect
> > reigned - as SOM - without competition. It had no inkling of any
> > levels in a MOQ sense, its mind-matter reality was all there was.
> > Now - after Pirsig - we may regard Q-intellect as analytical reason
> > (which IS freedom from social values) while "intelligence" - once
> > the "mental" deadweight is jettisoned - are all the various lower
> > levels - separate or compound ....including Intellect! (You will
> > know that I regard the MOQ as beyond intellect).
> Hmmm.... you know, I think I agree with what (I think) you're saying
> here... and it may solve the SOLAQI problem for me as well (Once a
> thief is caught a whole string of crimes are often solved....). My
> problem with SOLAQI was mainly that it seemed to confine "reason" to
> being SOL.... but if you are making the MoQ itself a 5th level, higher
> than even Intellect, then I believe I can now agree with the theory.
He he, yes, it gets complicated at times, but you have got me right.
Higher than Intellect, that's the point. How much? It's still in some
"SOLar flare stage", it protrudes and falls back, but may reach
escape velocity some day.
> Work with me here.... In the other forum I was commenting to someone
> about how SOL is great for deciding about what "IS" but is essentially
> useless in deciding about what "ought" to be... that is, matters of
> Value and Morality. The MoQ is such a pattern, it tells us what "is",
> but also tells us about "oughts". My problem with SOLAQI was that it
> made SOL the highest level which has the effect of excluding reasoning
> about Value and Morality from the Intellectual level... but if the MoQ
> is part of a level higher than Intellect, than it must be this 5th
> level which is the source the "oughts"... I hope that makes sense to
> you. Does this jive with your view??? And if so, what do propose the
> 5th level be called? And what would you say are it's defining
I have been slow in responding because I savoured it so much.
YES it jives completely with my view, and I think it solves the
impossibilities that surfaces in the McWatt/Pirsig correspondence
that David B brought up.
I am reluctant about any names for a movement beyond Intellect,
but the last time we discussed it I called it an X or Q-level. I am not
blind to it meeting with a new difficulty - MOQ as its own fifth level!
(G–del's Theorem strikes again) - but that's a worry for a far off
future. As it is we are just a handful who subscribes to the MOQ
and just two who has reached - um - full enlightenment ;-)
> Slowly moseying towards understanding,
Good! You made made my day - no, the whole week!
The End - finally.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:24 BST