From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Thu Jul 28 2005 - 09:01:17 BST
Hi Scott,
> Scott:
> Well, I don't think you have made that point about mathematics.
<snip>
> 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.
My point is that the perception of the truth of, eg 2+2 = 4 is not
independent of human character, eg honesty. I think we are too familiar with
2+2=4 and the like for the possibility of an alternative to be readily
understandable. But consider Fermat's last theorem - there were a number of
'false starts' where people thought it had been solved, before Wiles
actually did so (and even now people think that there must be a 'better' (ie
simpler and more aesthetically pleasing) proof to be found). I think what
seems to be 'independence' is simply a deeply embedded social level of
agreement.
> 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'm quite happy with that; the only thing that I would say is that it
broadens the understanding of 'intellect' away from the abstract sense
preferred by many people here. Once that has happened I'm quite happy to
stick with 'intellect' as the descriptor. I agree strongly BTW that
intellect, understood in this way, is the key enabler of emotional
intelligence. I think that's what 'detachment from desire' is (and what I'm
banging on about is that in order to understand even 2+2=4 you need to have
a certain degree of detachment from desire).
I may come back to your other points later.
Cheers
Sam
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 - 11:16:26 BST