From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Nov 04 2005 - 23:48:45 GMT
Scott,
Could you clarify this for me?
I was surprised that you agreed to what Ham wrote
below.
When I first read this I got an image of us evolving
into language....I didn't agree with it because I
thought it was saying we evolved from no
language/intellect to language/intellect. When you
said you were the one who had said it I went back and
read it again because it didn't really seem consistent
with your posts. I am not sure if my original reading
was wrong or I am missing something. Is this saying
there are higher levels of intellegience and language
that we tap into..That makes more sense to me.
Erin
> Ham,
>
> Ham said [to Erin]:
> The idea that 'Intellect' and 'Language' are not
> indigenous to human thought
> but hang around in some esthetic limbo waiting for
> man to 'latch onto' or
> 'evolve to' them is absurd. One must have a strong
> aversion to
> individuality in order to believe such nonsense.
> Not only is man the
> inventor and sole user of language, intellect is his
> proprietary gift.
> Through the use of his intellect and language, man
> is the 'choicemaker' of
> the physical world. That's MY explanation.
>
> Scott:
> Actually, I think I'm the only one around here who
> says unequivocally that
> there is intellect and language outside the human
> context. This does NOT
> imply "a strong aversion to individuality", however.
> See my 11/2 post in the
> "Quality, subjectivity, and the 4th level" thread
> for why it doesn't.
>
> - 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 : Sat Nov 05 2005 - 02:50:05 GMT