From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
Date: Sat Jul 12 2003 - 01:31:03 BST
If an individual, or group of individuals hold a socially approved definition
of what intellect or intelligence is, and if that definition is culturally
narrow, then the said group have arbitrarily discriminated between cultures.
Further, if the definitions regard morally related evolutionary levels, then
the discrimination is along lines of moral superiority.
Its not rocket science is it?
Thus, the Skutvik doctrine asserts an over active office clerk is morally
superior to Confucius.
The MoQ, however, describes intellect and intelligence as a relationship
between DQ and Static patterns, and as DQ is undefined, there is no definition of
intellect outside the relationship. The relationship is derived from an
undifferentiated aesthetic continuum.
The derivation began at a time no one can identify, but appears, from
linguistic evidence, to have begun with social ritual. Thus, using language to
symbolise the wonder of social aesthetic is not social aesthetic - it is intellect
making its first foray into Human life.
Skutvik never discusses art or aesthetics - he does not have the conceptual
vocabulary to handle it. He does not have the conceptual vocabulary to handle
it because his own definitions negate them. It is little wonder when it comes
to the East, Skutvik blithely talks of, 'these people' as if they are over
there somewhere in a box.
squonk
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 : Sat Jul 12 2003 - 01:31:25 BST