Re: MD The SOL fallacy was the intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)

From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Oct 17 2005 - 12:40:29 BST

  • Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: MD The 4th level renamed?"

    Mike said
    what a mess we get into by continuing to use the word "intellect" when
    some of us mean very different things by this word.

    Would you guys mind terribly if I suggested "told you so" ? :-)

    Ian
    BTW I don't believe the answer is inventing new words and ever tighter
    definitions, just more dialogue where we beware, elaborate and test
    out this aspect as we go.

    On 10/17/05, Michael Hamilton <thethemichael@gmail.com> wrote:
    > The exchange quoted below just goes to show what a mess we get into by
    > continuing to use the word "intellect" when some of us mean very
    > different things by this word. More worryingly, it also shows that
    > some people feel the need to ridicule others simply because they use
    > the word to mean something different. Needless to say, this isn't
    > conducive to the understanding of new or foreign ideas. I'm tempted to
    > explain why DMB's ridicule is so misplaced in this instance, but I'm
    > sure Scott can do that himself.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Mike
    >
    > On 10/16/05, david buchanan <dmbuchanan@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > > Hey MOQers:
    > >
    > > Mike said:
    > > Interestingly, this seems to support Scott's argument that Intellect is not
    > > static at all, but should be
    > > equated with DQ.
    > >
    > > >Scott replied:
    > > >I've never said that DQ can be incorporated into any static description. My
    > > >point is that neither can intellect be so incorporated. This is because
    > > >intellect is the maker of static descriptions. Intellect manipulates
    > > >concepts, and in doing so creates new concepts and sheds old ones. It
    > > >leaves
    > > >concepts in its wake. Since it is not bound by any particular set of
    > > >concepts, it too is concept-free. In short, whatever one says about DQ can
    > > >be said about intellect, except of course the nonsensical claim that DQ is
    > > >"pre-intellectual". A separate issue is whether one considers intellect a
    > > >subset of DQ or if they are completely equatable. I argue for the latter,
    > > >but that requires more redescribing, as Matt puts it.
    > >
    > > dmb says:
    > > You don't equate intellectual quality with Dynamic Quality, but assert that
    > > "whatever on says about DQ can be said about intellect" and argue that "they
    > > are completely equatable"?
    > >
    > > Also, you say intellect manipulates, creates, and sheds concepts, but its
    > > not bound by concepts and is concept-free?
    > >
    > > You don't equate DQ and Intellectual sq. You only say they are completely
    > > equatable. Pre-intellectual experience is a nonsensical idea, but its OK to
    > > say intellect is concept-free.
    > >
    > > OK. Now I get it. You're a comedian and this is your act, right? You're
    > > trying to see how many people will treat your statements as if they were
    > > something other than pure drivel, just for laughs, right? It took me a while
    > > to realize this because, frankly, its not that funny. If I may offer some
    > > unsolicited advice, I'd suggest you try to make it a little less goofy and a
    > > little more plausible. There are some pretty sharp people around here and
    > > they are not likely to be amused by statements that are so conspicuously
    > > daft.
    > >
    > > If its any consolation, I nearly cracked a smile this time.
    > >
    > > Thanks for your efforts.
    > >
    > > dmb
    > >
    > > P.S. Despite my criticism of your act, I do happen to think you're a master
    > > of the absurd non-sequiter.
    > >
    > > _________________________________________________________________
    > > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
    > > http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > 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
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 Oct 17 2005 - 13:11:57 BST