From: Michael Hamilton (thethemichael@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Oct 18 2005 - 15:42:33 BST
Hi Scott,
Mike:
> what a mess we get into by continuing to use the word "intellect" when
> some of us mean very different things by this word.
> Scott:
> In my defense, since I began posting here I have been criticizing the MOQ's
> treatment of intellect. Hence in this post as well it should be understood
> that I am trying to change the way that MOQists think about intellect, so as
> I see it, it went without saying that "some of us mean very different things
> by this word". DMB regards the MOQ's treatment of intellect as holy writ,
> and so considers it an adequate reply to ridicule what I say simply because
> it goes counter to the MOQ.
Mike:
Fair enough. To be honest it was just an opportunistic attempt to
grind an axe regarding the 4th level and the "intellect" label. My
main problem is not the use of "intellect" in itself, but the thing I
elaborated in the following paragraph:
"What we must _not_ do is read the word "intellect" and every
time think "ah, he must be talking about Pirsig's 4th static level".
The same goes for any word that has been given particular
philosophical significance by some writer or writers. It's totally
futile to go around imposing our own meanings on these pivotal words
before they've even been explained. But of course you know this
already, Ian!"
And so do you.
Regards,
Mike
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 19 2005 - 01:40:27 BST