Re: MD Intellectual patterns? huh?

From: Joe (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 19:12:11 BST

  • Next message: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com: "Re: MD And now for something not very different at all"

    On 20 July 2003 8:26 AM Bo writes:

    Bo:
    The below paragraph touches the essence of it all.

    > I have yet to find anyone who has made a clear distinction between
    > intellectual patterns that belong in the intellectual level and those
    > that don't. (Intuitive intellect is an oxymoron.). If there are
    > intellectual patterns that don't belong, where do they go instead?

    Yes, "intuitive intellect" is an oxymoron as is the thinking intellect.
    They are all facets of existence's dynamics - DQ called - and don't
    belong in the static hierarchy - intellect least of all.

    Hi Bo, Platt, Pi, and multitude,

    "But all of these things are facets of the dynamical aspect of existence-out
    of which Phaecrus picked 'the mother of them all' QUALITY."

    joe: Bo, you seem to accept the relativity of existence otherwise how could
    existence be dynamic? It is not too far a stretch to accept the relativity
    of purpose. For the inorganic order the source of movement is gravity. For
    the organic order 'purpose' becomes a source of movement beyond gravity and
    is relative when discussing movements in the social or intellectual orders.
    Finally the relativity of 'intellect' which embraces dynamic quality proper
    to the inorganic, organic, social, and intellectual orders. The term I use
    to describe this relativity of the 'intellect' is 'intuitive intellect'
    which apprehends dynamic quality.

    And now to account for static quality, patterns, words. Let the fun begin!
    It is easiest to say that static patterns are mine. I have an awareness
    which can hold and manipulate static patterns. I have a memory. My
    awareness is generated by my DNA and is not comparable to a 'mind' or
    preexisting 'intellect and will' and other machines necessary to abstraction
    and SOM. I propose an analogy that my awarenss is like the gravity field
    generated by the earth. When I communicate using static patterns, the
    listeners only trust what I am saying. Only as a predator can I overcome
    the awareness of another and directly influence actions. Pretty scary!
    Sentients, as predators, are not new patterns.

    Wiseacring with patterns in my awareness is my 'thinking intellect'. "Yes,
    'intuitive intellect' is an oxymoron." I had better find my 'elephant gun'.

    Joe

    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 : Mon Jul 21 2003 - 19:08:27 BST