From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sun Jan 25 2004 - 08:06:28 GMT
Paul and All
23 Jan.you wrote:
> Bo said:
> I believe that the trouble with intellect has its origin in the
> unresolved "platypus" INTELLIGENCE. The amazing capacity of animals
> (below both intellect and society) up to "idiots savants" to do the
> most fantastic calculatins in split seconds. You certainly know some
> examples, they are legio. Where is this to be placed in the MOQ. To me
> it sounds as if it is this intelligence that many call "intellect".
> What do you think? ....Everybody!
> Paul:
> As Pirsig says somewhere, I think a problem with the term
> "intelligence" occurs because it is often stretched beyond its usual
> meaning.
I believe Pirsig says "intellect" in the above quotation not
intelligence, and we know that the intellectual level becomes
problematic if stretched beyond its usual meaning which is
REASON. And that is not to be able to discuss, but to distinguish
between what is TRUE in contrast to opinion. See, we keep up
this discussion going because we believe that there IS an
objective truth beyond what an authority says.
The dictionary says "The power of mind to reason in contrast to
instincts and emotions". The "power of mind" part can be omitted
and only "reason" retained. The fallacy of this group has been to
concentrate ONLY on the "power of mind" part.
> If, for example, dolphins are to be described as intelligent
> then it is not a precise enough term to distinguish between the human
> capacity for the skilled manipulation of abstract symbols and the
> ability to push levers in anticipation of being given a fish.
Is this still Pirsig or is it Paul? Anyway it shows the very problem
...we - you - Pirsig - mix MOQ's intellectual level with
INTELLIGENCE. He says "...if dolphins are to be described as
intelligent". Of course dolphins are intelligent (as that term is
defined in dictionaries: "The power to learn and perceive ...") but
dolphins are by no stretch "intellectual". Here animal behavior is
lumped into the "instinct" category, but if anything is SOM it's the
mind versus instincts.
> I would
> hope that the MOQ would give us an alternative vocabulary with which
> to describe the many types of behaviour previously lumped under the
> banner of "intelligent."
This is right, the MOQ does give us an alternative, but above he
does NOT heed this. Intelligence and intellect is treated as
SOM's mind and creates the very same platypus.
> The other point about mental calculation not being intellectual seems
> incorrect to me. It doesn't strike me as a social pattern, except for
> the need to learn the conventions of arithmetic.
So everything "mental" - calculation, thinking, lust for fish
..whatever - is intellectual level? (I agree about the social
alternative)
Sincerely
Bo.
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 : Sun Jan 25 2004 - 08:08:05 GMT