From: Scott Roberts (jse885@cox.net)
Date: Wed Jul 27 2005 - 22:49:12 BST
Sam, Bo, et al,
> Scott said:
<snip some agreed bits>
> However, the really big question, as I see it, is whether one can examine
> examples from mathematics or physics, and use them for understanding
> intellect in general, in particular in philosophy and politics. The reason
> the better mathematical structures can be chosen is that the assumptions
> are
> clear and all terms are precise. That is not the case outside of
> mathematics
> or mathematically based science.
Sam said:
I was deliberately choosing mathematical examples simply because if I could
make the point even there, in the hallowed realms of purely abstract
thought, it would be a doddle making the point in more philosophical or
political fields. As I understand it intellect isn't independent of human
character, even where mathematics is concerned. That's my perspective.
Scott:
Well, I don't think you have made that point about mathematics. The thing
about mathematics is that, in contrast to other disciplines, including
science, it does not undergo revolutions. It just gets added to and
deepened. By "deepened" I mean that the foundations (axioms and rules of
inference) are examined and made clearer. For example, people used calculus
for almost 200 years before an axiomatic basis for it was worked out in the
19th century. An axiomatic basis for arithmetic wasn't worked out until late
in the 19th century. But that does not mean that the use of calculus or
arithmetic was in any way wrong prior to that, in the sense that Newtonian
physics was discovered to be wrong (albeit a good approximation) by Einstein
and QM. This, of course, does not mean that all mathematicians get
everything right all the time. Frege thought that he had a good basis for
mathematical logic in set theory until Russell pointed out that Frege's
basis allowed for a paradox. But this just meant that Frege's effort at
deepening was off-track, not that mathematical logic had to be tossed. There
are also (or were) some philosophers of mathematics (called intuitionists)
who hold that some mathematical usages dealing with infinity are suspect.
But they have largely been ignored as mathematicians continued to use those
supposedly suspect methods.
A couple of other examples: Non-Euclidean geometry did not invalidate
Euclidean, it just added other equally valid geometries. The revolution
involved was not in mathematics, rather it was in natural philosophy -- the
belief that Euclidean geometry accurately described space and time could now
be questioned. Goedel's proof likewise did not invalidate anything. All it
proved was that those who looked for a complete axiomatic system for all of
mathematics were not going to find one.
So as I see it, mathematics is the one intellectual discipline for which one
can make the case that it is independent of human character -- though of
course, this claim of independence, being philosophical, is itself not
necessarily independent. Hence the question of intellect's independence from
human character remains open in principle. While it is clearly not
independent in most day-to-day uses (for example in this forum), it could be
that it is still struggling to become so, which I think to be the case.
I'll throw in a criticism of the Eudaimonic level, while I'm at it.
Actually, I am largely in agreement that the fourth level can be
characterized as the rise of the autonomic individual. But I disagree that
autonomy comes from emotional maturity rather than intellect. I disagree
because I see intellect as the cause of emotional maturity, in that
intellect is what makes it possible for the developing individual to reflect
on his or her emotions, in a word, to become detached from them. (But there
is a feedback loop involved: intellect increases emotional maturity, which
in turn lets intellect thrive all the more.) Hence I see autonomous
individuality and intellect as mutually dependent. I also agree up to a
point with the SOL, that the power to objectify is the hallmark of intellect
(what Barfield calls alpha-thinking). But the power to objectify can itself
be objectified (beta-thinking), and this leads intellect to realize that
objects are not merely mirrored by intellect (SOM), but created (as objects)
by intellect -- and so objects and objectification are capable of being
deconstructed by intellect. So intellect does not equal S/O.
I'll also throw in my candidate for intellect's static latch, namely the
concept. There is no object without a concept, and the intellect develops by
inventing new words, or, more commonly, adding new meanings, or shading old
meanings, of existing words. This applies whether or not the new meaning is
accepted by everyone or only by a small group or just by an individual.
Finally, in answer to the question in the subject heading of this thread
("how do intellectual patterns respond to Quality"), they don't. Intellect
makes patterns (new concepts and systems of concepts), and so intellect is
DQ.
- Scott
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 : Thu Jul 28 2005 - 05:36:52 BST