From: Joe (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Thu Jul 24 2003 - 20:25:41 BST
On 23 July 2003 11:16 PM Bo writes:
Hi Bo, Platt, Matt and all,
> Me from before:
> > "But all of these things are facets of the dynamical aspect of
> > existence-out of which Phaecrus picked 'the mother of them all'
> > QUALITY."
>
> Joe now:
> > Bo, you seem to accept the relativity of existence otherwise how
> > could existence be dynamic?
Bo:
> "...accept the relativity of existence"? What do you mean?
joe: "dynamical aspect of existence" seemed to me to mean what I meant by
relative existence.
> > It is not too far a stretch to accept the
> > relativity of purpose. For the inorganic order the source of movement
> > is gravity. For the organic order 'purpose' becomes a source of
> > movement beyond gravity and is relative when discussing movements in
> > the social or intellectual orders. Finally the relativity of
> > 'intellect' which embraces dynamic quality proper to the inorganic,
> > organic, social, and intellectual orders. The term I use to describe
> > this relativity of the 'intellect' is 'intuitive intellect' which
> > apprehends dynamic quality.
Bo
> I dare not answer until I understand. Please elaborate
joe: these are aspects of the structure for an instinctive sensing of
reality, intuition.
> > And now to account for static quality, patterns, words. Let the fun
> > begin! It is easiest to say that static patterns are mine. I have an
> > awareness which can hold and manipulate static patterns. I have a
> > memory. My awareness is generated by my DNA and is not comparable to
> > a 'mind' or preexisting 'intellect and will' and other machines
> > necessary to abstraction and SOM. I propose an analogy that my
> > awarenss is like the gravity field generated by the earth. When I
> > communicate using static patterns, the listeners only trust what I am
> > saying. Only as a predator can I overcome the awareness of another
> > and directly influence actions. Pretty scary! Sentients, as
> > predators, are not new patterns.
>
> > Wiseacring with patterns in my awareness is my 'thinking intellect'.
> > "Yes, 'intuitive intellect' is an oxymoron." I had better find my
> > 'elephant gun'.
Bo:
> As said, you may be saying something of profound importance, but
> what? No sarcasm. Give it another try.
joe: I am sorry about the statement 'elephant gun.' I used the apostrophes
to indicate what a profound effect the idea of undefined dq has on me.. I
am sorry about a hunting metaphor. I was in reaction to Platt and your
acceptance of the statement "Yes, 'intuitive intellect' is an oxymoron."
The statement does not communicate anything to me except the stupidity of my
associations. I am amazed that Platt, you, and Matt refuse to accept that
intuition is a meaningful approach to dq. Different strokes!
Joe
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 24 2003 - 20:22:10 BST