SQUONKSTAIL:
> Hi Bo,
> You disappoint me ...etc.
Dear Friend
Quite a broadside! Still, you obviously have some respect for me and believe
that if I understood your way of understanding the MOQ - and were swayed -
it would matter. I thank you for that and also understand perfectly what you
mean about my q-intellect (S/O-intellect) not explaining Shakespeare or
Mozart ....nor does it explain bird-song or how pigeons home and a million
other astounding feats. Mixing intelligence and the static intellectual level is
the most common pitfall in the MOQ. Besides the postulate of an inorganic
level does not explain the springing into existence of matter, nor does the
biological level explain how life came to be? It's the DYNAMICAL process
which is undefined/unexplained because ANY explanation will be an
objective (versus subjective) explanation. In other words an intellectual one
...MY S/O intellect again justified!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Where have you been all the time? The rate and depth (read shallow:-) of
your answers indicate not thinking much except hammering at the
keyboard. We have discussed the "intelligence" phenomena up walls and
down poles (as we say), particularly Denis Poisson and David Buchanan
(the intelligent ones having the sense to unsubscribe, only us junkies left :-)
how there is this astounding display of something that can be compared to
"mind" starting low down in the animal kingdom. Much keener senses than
our human sort is one thing, but showing a mental ability that leaves us
humans in the dust (a radio program in Norway brings stories of animal
behaviour, and it's completely bewildering).
In the SOM there is this notion of biological evolution rising in neural
complexity bringing along a similar rise in mental abilities reaching a climax
with the mammals and finally leaping into "self-consciousness" (or MIND)
with the human beings, but if the MOQ is supposed to be a good-bye to the
from-matter-into-mind view of things (and if you agree with me about
Wilber's lapse back into that view you should heed that) then the STATIC
intellectual level can't be anything like previous conceived. And it is here that
I accuse you, Squonk, of not having understood the first thing, but keeps on
about the human achievements in arts as if THAT is q-intellect.
Q-intellect is as said a STATIC value level, thus some definition of it is
needed and nobody except yours sincerely has provided any and I am
conceited enough to be proud of that achievement ...especially as this SO-
intellect seems to explain everything I have directed it at, while the whatever-
comes-into-one's-mind-intellect gets bogged down in SOM-sand quickly.
Especially when we enter a possible development beyond intellect and
people starts about super-computation and net-works of minds ..etc. shows
that the kind of intellect you propose is impossible to get beyond.
I just can't understand that you see yourself as some heretic or "lone wolf" at
this site, your view is trite until vomiting, and accusing me of standing in the
way of a quality growth is grossly mis-directed, but please be my guest ...I
like your hot-headed style and am - as said - pleased that you put my
opinion that high.
>From Bo with love.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:20 BST