RE: MD A bit of reasoning

From: Scott Roberts (
Date: Sat Oct 16 2004 - 02:20:33 BST

  • Next message: Jim Ledbury: "Re: MD A bit of reasoning"

    Chuck, Mark, et al,

    > <Mark>
    > "what reason
    > do we have to believe that human intellect is limited at all?"

    > <Chuck>
    > I don't see any reason.
    > Just so I understand though, are you guys saying that in the absence of
    > human intellect, DQ is impossible?

    I'm not. DQ is everywhere and everywhen, just as the MOQ says. My addition
    to this is that DQ can also be called Dynamic Intellect, and human
    intellect is just a crippled version of it. So I am saying that elsewhere
    and elsewhen (from the human) there are other forms of intellect, all being
    versions, some crippled, perhaps some not, of DQ.

    As for limitations of human intellect, this is tricky. That human intellect
    is infinite I have no doubt: Godel's Proof shows that. Whatever system we
    might think in (if it's at least as complicated as arithmetic), one can
    never think it through entirely. And one can always consider any system as
    a whole, thus jumping out of the system.

    But I think there are things we cannot understand, in the sense that we can
    understand a scientific procedure or theory. At least, we cannot understand
    them without what for lack of a better word I will call transcendence, and
    if we attain such Understanding, we cannot describe it to those without
    such Understanding. This is straight mysticism, but I think it also applies
    to such things as understanding itself. Or awareness, or intellect, or
    will, or perception, or quality. I've found, when I try to think about such
    things -- pretty much anything we typically call mental -- that I run into
    a contradictory situation. So I am interested in what Nishida called the
    logic of contradictory identity, and Coleridge called polarity. It cannot
    be understood, but keeps one focused on one's not-understanding, and why.

    Sorry to be so cryptic, but then that's what one gets when one tries to
    think about limits to thinking. If we knew the limits, we would have passed
    them. How does one describe description? How can we be aware of change
    without being something continuous, and yet be aware of our continuity
    without changing? Etc.

    - Scott

    > msh asks:
    > Just a general question about the limitations of human intellect,
    > addressed to anyone who wants to take a crack at it. When we say
    > that there's a point beyond which our limited human
    > intellects can't go, we don't mean that this point is fixed
    > somewhere along the continuum of possible human mental activity, do
    > we? It sems like this point gets pushed along, right along with our
    > own intellectual/biological evolution. If this is true, what reason
    > do we have to believe that human intellect is limited at all?
    > Thanks,
    > Mark Steven Heyman (msh)

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Oct 16 2004 - 03:22:01 BST