From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Mon Oct 17 2005 - 19:28:20 BST
Ian, Mike (DMB mentioned),
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.
Ian said:
Would you guys mind terribly if I suggested "told you so" ? :-)
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.
Scott to Ian:
I have to say that I am getting somewhat exasperated by your response. I
have tried to get a dialogue going by saying what intellect means to me,
namely, the creating and manipulating of, and reflection on, symbolic SQ. I
expect the dialogue to conitnue by having this critiqued, and with
alternatives being put forth. But this doesn't happen, instead, you just
repeat that "we need to have dialogue". Yes we do. So how about it? Is this
usage of the word acceptable to you? If not, why not, and what alternative
do you offer? If so, what do you make of its implication that intellect is
DQ (or at least that the creative and possibly the reflective aspects of
intellect are a subset of DQ)?
Scott to Mike:
In my defense, since I began posting here I have been criticizing the MOQ's
treatment of intellect. Hence in this post as well it should be understood
that I am trying to change the way that MOQists think about intellect, so as
I see it, it went without saying that "some of us mean very different things
by this word". DMB regards the MOQ's treatment of intellect as holy writ,
and so considers it an adequate reply to ridicule what I say simply because
it goes counter to the MOQ.
I should add that changing the way one thinks about intellect also means
changing the way one thinks about DQ, and I think that is really what drives
DMB up a wall.
- Scott
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
>
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 : Tue Oct 18 2005 - 04:05:42 BST