From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
Date: Sat Jul 12 2003 - 23:07:13 BST
Squonk,
[Squonk:] If an individual, or group of individuals hold a socially approved
definition of what intellect or intelligence is, and if that definition is
culturally narrow, then the said group have arbitrarily discriminated between
cultures.
Yes. So the question is, is the claim that the S/O divide marks the
intellectual level culturally narrow? (First, a clarification. The claim does NOT
assert that all intellectual activity is S/O. It only claims that the intellectual
level, as a MOQ level, is reasoning, thinking, etc. that has the capacity to
be in conflict with the social level, and that it first acquired that capacity
when subjects were distinguished from objects, so that objects *as* objects
could be thought about in general terms).
sq: Intellect or intelligence has nothing to do with the so called Subject
Object divide. The intellect confirmed this distinction of social and biological
values as a myth. Intellect can also confirm that Quantum fields have no
subjects and objects.
In Western culture, that origin of the independent intellectual level can be
seen to have occurred in Ancient Greece, with the pre-Socratics, i.e., after
Homer. Did it occur elsewhere? Clearly it did. For example, from Chandrakirti's
"The Entry into the Middle Way", para. 45:
"[The Yogacarin asserts] Where no object exists, no subject can be found, and
therefore the bodhisattva understands that the triple world is merely mind."
(Note: Chandrakirti will be arguing against this idealist position, as well
as its materialist opposite, but the point is that the argument was over
subjects and objects, so there had to be an S/O divide.)
sq: The 'divide' as you call it has nothing to do with intellect or
intelligence.
There is a cultural difference between East and West, of course, in that
Eastern philosophers who argued for transcending the S/O divide got a lot more
respect than they did in the West, but that they had to argue shows that it
existed.
sq: Intellect and intelligence in the East isn't that concerned with subjects
and objects. You indicate that some thought was given to these values, but
its not exactly rampant is it?
[Squonk:] Further, if the definitions regard morally related evolutionary
levels, then the discrimination is along lines of moral superiority.
Yes. But I do not know of any existing culture that does not have an
independent intellectual level, which is the only criterion for claiming moral
superiority. If you know of one, let me know.
sq: Skutvik denies cultures the intellectual level. That was my initial
argument, so just why you have got right up on your high horse is a bit confusing.
[Squonk:] Its not rocket science is it?
No. It is much harder than rocket science. In rocket science you know you are
wrong when the rocket fails to hit its target. But in this case we are
dealing with conflicting definitions, and interpretations built on interpretations.
None of us were there when the intellect began to separate from the social. So
we are making our best guesses, not only in coming to our own conclusions,
but also in evaluating the conclusions of others. IT IS FOR THIS REASON that to
make accusations of racism is reprehensible. The accusation came by piling
assumption on assumption (and above I have shown why those assumptions are
invalid), to accuse a fellow poster of a social crime. Doing so is an intellectual
crime.
sq: I think you will find Skutvik is making the definitions and drawing
arbitrary lines in the shifting sands of time. His definitions and lines are
culturally definite aren't they?
[Squonk:] Thus, the Skutvik doctrine asserts an over active office clerk is
morally superior to Confucius.
"Thus" only if your assumptions are correct, and they are not.
sq: Skutvik is making all the assumptions. Have you been a supporter of his
for a long time? Is that what is getting you hot under the collar? Didn't think
it appropriate to question the great man and fell into his nonsense?
(I am responding to the remainder of your post separately, since I want to
separate argumentation over when the intellectual level starts from this issue
of racism).
- Scott
sq: Fair enough.
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 Jul 12 2003 - 23:07:37 BST