Ona Kan o wo oja is yoruba for there are many paths to access the Market. It suggests that there are many possible means via which we can attain a single goal.

What is the relationship between this notion and Intellect, or Intelligence?

Pastor AIO:

Ona Kan o wo oja is yoruba for there are many paths to access the Market. It suggests that there are many possible means via which we can attain a single goal.

What is the relationship between this notion and Intellect, or Intelligence?

I think it means exactly what it says, which in Christianese, is "In my Father's house are many mansions. [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:2%20&version=9]John 14:2[/url]. I do not think it has any specific connection to intelligence except that knowing this and understanding it (which requires the use of the intelligence), will make one behave intelligently, if you get my gist, Pastor.

@buda atum: How could you have drawn a similarity or similitude with the Biblical in my father's house there are many places and the ono kon o woja? The yorubas when they spoke this adage/idiom, Christianity is not known to them. And what is interesting about the adage is that it is self explanatory, without anyone reading "hiding" meaning to it.

It is the fact that Oja "market" is always the center of activities and meetings in sales, commerce, etc and not always far from the Kings palace. The market is the focal point, overshadowing the king's palace, which means that homes are developed arount the Market! It is like the Kaaba of the Muslims, or the Solomon Temple of the Children of israel! Hence people on the day of the market come from all the directions to this very direct and single focus of the people of the town!

The song of Ebenzer Obey says bi o ko kon o lo Ejirin, egbe gberun ee a lo! Ejirin is an Ijebu Village, and it is bordered oon one side by Osa. Ejirin Market is a night market and people come by foot and Canoes in those days. The canoe people was the Oko being referred in that song.

Eji je eyi o je is really the conceptual twin of Ono kon o wo ja; It could be the unassuredness of the matter that will make a person tries many paths to what they think is a similar possibilities. That is why Eji je eyi o je is more to it than any Biblical my fathers's place there are many rooms or places in it!

There are two ways of accounting for processes.  

The first is by Necessity.

The second is by Teleology.

By necessity we say that something happened due to a Prior cause.  In other words another event happened first that caused the subsequent event.  So if we are to ask why a ball flew into the air, the answer can be because it was kicked by a man.  When a ball is kicked it will Necessarily flew off into the air.

Teleological explanation on the other hand place the cause after the event.  Teleology is derived from the greek word Telos which means the end, or the purpose, or the final outcome.

Teleology (Greek: telos: end, purpose) is the philosophical study of design and purpose. A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists.
As a school of thought it can be contrasted with metaphysical naturalism, which views nature as having no design or purpose. Teleology would say that a person has eyes because he has the need of sight (form following function), while naturalism would say that a person has sight because he has eyes (function following form).
In European philosophy, teleology may be identified with Aristotelianism and the scholastic tradition. Most theology presupposes a teleology:[1] design in nature can be used as a teleological argument for the existence of God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology

For example if you ask, why did the man run to the hotel, a possible answer is because he wanted to see his girlfriend.  The Cause of why he is running is something that lies ahead/after the event of running.  The event has a purpose or end which lies in the future.  

The difference between these two approaches to causality has great implications.  

If all process occurs by Necessity then there is only one course that the world can take.  That course has been determined from the beginning of time and everything that occurs is a result of conditions at the beginning of time.  This is called determinism.

Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behavior, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.[1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

In this case there is only One Route.  Whether or not it will get you to the market is of no consequence.  It is totally mechanical, like a robot.

Teleology on the other hand suggests that with a purpose in mind a process can adapt itself in order to reach the goal/purpose.
So a man heading for the market, if he finds himself on the wrong path, can adjust his route in order to redirect himself back to the market. Or say, he is accustomed to entering by the east gate but one day finds that gate locked, he can redirect his path so that he can enter from the North gate.
 
What determines what he does is whether or not it will lead to his goal.  

A process that is teleologically driven suggests Intelligence, rather than a mechanical lifelessness.  It can make choices in order to arrive at it's goal.  The Goal is singular but the means are many and various.

That is why I say Ona Kan O Wo Oja is a sign of Intelligence.

what has this thread got to do with religion?

noetic2:

what has this thread got to do with religion?

You need to read carefully, and think too, about the implications of what is being discussed.

Most theology presupposes a teleology:[1] design in nature can be used as a teleological argument for the existence of God.

It is my experience that there is not matter that doesn't involve religion in one way or the other.  The above quote is one example (only one though there are more) of what this thread has to do with religion.

Pastor AIO:

You need to read carefully, and think too, about the implications of what is being discussed.

what is that implication in a nutshell?

noetic2:

what is that implication in a nutshell?

There are many. But one would be that if Teleology can be proven to be a causal influence then it gives Theology a better foundation.

Pastor AIO:

There are many.  But one would be that if Teleology can be proven to be a causal influence then it gives Theology a better foundation.

how exactly do u intend to prove this? and whats the basis of assuming that theology has no sustainable foundation?

noetic2:

how exactly do u intend to prove this?

I'm not saying that is my intention to prove anything or that I have something up my sleeve that I'm about to unveil.

noetic2:
and whats the basis of assuming that theology has no sustainable foundation?

You'll have to ask an atheist this question. I don't know how sustainability comes into it either. I said it would give it a better foundation in the sense that it would strengthen the argument for it.

olabowale:

@buda atum: How could you have drawn a similarity or similitude with the Biblical in my father's house there are many places and the ono kon o woja? The yorubas when they spoke this adage/idiom, Christianity is not known to them. And what is interesting about the adage is that it is self explanatory, without anyone reading "hiding" meaning to it.

It is the fact that Oja "market" is always the center of activities and meetings in sales, commerce, etc and not always far from the Kings palace. The market is the focal point, overshadowing the king's palace, which means that homes are developed arount the Market! It is like the Kaaba of the Muslims, or the Solomon Temple of the Children of israel! Hence people on the day of the market come from all the directions to this very direct and single focus of the people of the town!

The song of Ebenzer Obey says bi o ko kon o lo Ejirin, egbe gberun ee a lo! Ejirin is an Ijebu Village, and it is bordered oon one side by Osa. Ejirin Market is a night market and people come by foot and Canoes in those days. The canoe people was the Oko being referred in that song.

Eji je eyi o je is really the conceptual twin of Ono kon o wo ja; It could be the unassuredness of the matter that will make a person tries many paths to what they think is a similar possibilities. That is why Eji je eyi o je is more to it than any Biblical my fathers's place there are many rooms or places in it!

Some people will say "There is more than one way to skin a cat", Olabowale, but one could hardly claim (and I am supposing here), that this adage refers to cats only, or would you? Take the Obey saying, you have used here: "bi o ko kon o lo Ejirin, egbe gberun ee a lo!" Is he not saying that if one person refuses to go somewhere (and that could be anywhere, and not only Ejirin, which many would not even know of or intend to go to anyway), that there are many others who would?

@buda atum: Now how can any of those examples apply to "the Biblical" verse of in my father's house, there are many places in it? That was my only inquiry. I could have agreed with youif you had said that the worshipping of the three god personalitie; Father, Son and Ghost, with a focal point by some logical miracle as becoming one is similar to the Ono kon o wo Oja yoruba statement.

One will have to asume that in Christian theological notion, ignoring or or two for the other that is focused upon among the three personaity will actually weakens thegodship/lordshipwhich they all become, hence the singular oja in this case.

Considering that a cat is assumed by its resillience to have 9 lives, the expression of more than one way to skin it is quite appropriate Yet no one thinks that cat has in reality more than one life, or other animals can not be skinned in just as many ways the skinner(s) wish(es) to go about it.

This is just my own opinion, even though I agree with your Ejirin robust expalanation.

when I look at a machine such as a Car or a Robot, or even this computer that I'm typing on, what is the difference between the way I perceive it and the way that I perceive a human being. When I get the feeling that I am talking to a sentient, intelligent being what is it that marks such a being as different from a mere machine?

Machine does have its advantages, by its being unable to control you and there, wating for you to make it functionable for what it can do for you. The disadvatages are many just as much; it can talk back at you so that it shows emotion, the warmth and human essence that keeps and fuel person to person interrelationship, at least above minimal, before you feel that there is a disconnect.

This reminds me of the people I have met in my journey of life. Talking to a person, what you get from the voice, brings some greater "I think I am relating to this person on the other end" notion, more significantly than an individual whose relationship with you have been through the emails without ever talking to hear each other's voice. You may have been communicating with a machine for all its worth.

But there is a mark difference and increase in how you value each other, when you meet face to face. Now putting an actual face and personality of emotions to that entity that was just a person in the flood of humanity on earth. A friend/person whose face, pattern of speech and emotional expressions you have experienced, you can tell when talking to each other on the phone or exchanging emails, etc the after initial person to person meeting, that you do know this person quite significantly more than you could have swore of your knowledge about him, just before you have that meeting. You now put a face to the voice, or to the writer of the email, etc.


Your friendshiip will probably be better for this singular meeting. Even if you never meet again, from the voice or writing, you can know if he is happyor what his emotion is. Yet before the meeting, it could have been difficult to truly figure him out.

olabowale:

Machine does have its advantages, by its being unable to control you and there, wating for you to make it functionable for what it can do for you. The disadvatages are many just as much; it can talk back at you so that it shows emotion, the warmth and human essence that keeps and fuel person to person interrelationship, at least above minimal, before you feel that there is a disconnect.

Thank you very much sir. I would put it this way. A machine does not have a will of it's own. It does not have any intent which you have to watch out for. Whereas if I were talking to a human being I could wonder, " what does this guy want, why is he talking to me?".
A machine will do nothing without me prompting it or someone else putting it into action. In other words a machine has no self determining purpose. It has no teleology. It operates by necessity. If I turn the key of my car the engine will, of necessity, start to rumble. Every thing it does is caused by a prior event. eg me turning the keys in the ignition prior to the engine rumbling.

With humans one must be more cautious. Imagine you wanted to drive your car from lagos to Ibadan but you got a feeling that really your car would rather go to dahomey. I think you would watch your car more carefully lest it purposely makes a wrong turn. There is a different vibe that you get from a being/machine that has it's own teleological purpose. It is harder to control, yes but you also get a feeling that there is something else to it. The sense of an intelligence in it (of a 'spirit'?).

Furthermore you don't feel that you can predict what it is going to do based on an initial set of conditions. It can decide to do it's own thing at any point thereby confounding your projections. In other words, it is to some extent free of it's circumstances, or initial conditions.

olabowale:

@buda atum: Now how can any of those examples apply to "the Biblical" verse of in my father's house, there are many places in it? That was my only inquiry. I could have agreed with youif you had said that the worshipping of the three god personalitie; Father, Son and Ghost, with a focal point by some logical miracle as becoming one is similar to the Ono kon o wo Oja yoruba statement.

One will have to asume that in Christian theological notion, ignoring or or two for the other that is focused upon among the three personaity will actually weakens thegodship/lordshipwhich they all become, hence the singular oja in this case.

Considering that a cat is assumed by its resillience to have 9 lives, the expression of more than one way to skin it is quite appropriate Yet no one thinks that cat has in reality more than one life, or other animals can not be skinned in just as many ways the skinner(s) wish(es) to go about it.

This is just my own opinion, even though I agree with your Ejirin robust expalanation.

Olabowale, the initial question of the thread had nothing to do, or rather, I did not approach it from a theological point of view, despite my "many houses" analogy. Linguistically, however - the perspective which the intellect made me approach it from - shows me the similaritiy in opinion of the two sayings as I presented it. Am I so far off in my analogy, do you think? Can one not say that Christ's Father's many mansions does not, or cannot mean, that there is more than one way to get in, or more accurately, that there are more than one place to be in his Father's House?

On reading your above, I figure I am limited by my very own intellect. I know that theological minded people would be rather averse to my opinion as expressed. After all, I am aware of my theological implication that "not only through Christ shall one enter the Kingdom of God", especially if one takes the view that "Christ" is only how Christians see "Christ".

Intelligence is an umbrella term used to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn. There are several ways to define intelligence. In some cases, intelligence may include traits such as creativity, personality, character, knowledge, or wisdom. However[b] there is no agreement on which traits define the phenomenon of intelligence agreed[/b] upon by a majority across the various concerned disciplines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence


I'd like to throw my tuppence into the pool of definitions. I would say that Intelligence was an awareness and perception of the environment that is overshadowed by a purpose, whereby the information from the environment is evaluated and employed according to how it can help achieve the purpose.

It therefore follows that an intelligent being is purpose driven and for intelligence to exist teleology must be valid.

chukwudi 44 posted some arguments for the existence of God which included this:

The Teleological Argument

The teleological argument, or argument from design, is also summarized by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. Here is the extract from the Summa:

"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things that lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."

This fits in a bit with what I'm trying to say here but there is more depth to it. 

It seems that Aquinas too thought that an intelligent being must act towards an end. The means are less important. It can take a number of options to arrive at the end it is seeking.

In other words Ona kan o wo oja. Literarily it means that there is more than one route to the market. If you block on route, an intelligent being will consider other means of reaching it's destination. An unintelligent being will keep pushing against the barrier.

bump . . . maybe there is someone can add something more of interest here.

Sometimes when one is alone. It could be indoors or even out in the country or in the woods one sometimes gets a sense of numinousity or sentience. A feeling like someone or something is watching them.

Perhaps such a person is merely going nuts. I don't want to discuss the validity of such an experience, or whether or not there is actually something there watching. Rather I want to analyze the feeling. I want to see if I can put my finger on what it is that I really feel during such times.

To me the feeling is that there is an intent in the area separate from my own intentions. That intent can be well-disposed towards me or it could be ill-disposed towards me. In other words it could either be at cross purposes with me or it could be in harmony.

This experience could be a foundation for the belief in disembodied intelligences.

I ask the following question with regards to 'ona kan o wo oja' from the religious perspective.

Does this also explain the predisposition of people to be polytheistic in general? You might find people drifting from one pastor to one alfa to one babalawo etc depending on whatever, without skipping a beat.

Even amongst the proper monotheists, we also find them moving from denomination to another, looking for what?

On a less serious note, 'ona kan o wo oja' seem like spread betting to me, covering all bases i.e Doctor wey dey sell akara,

Domo
Arigato Gozeimashte

Most of us would agree that Man, a neurological machine, has Intentions. His behaviour is purposeful. when you see a man walking down the street you presume he is going somewhere, he has a destination and he can take any number of paths to get to his destination.

You don't think the same thing when you see a ball rolling down the road. Instead of looking for the destination it is trying to get to you instead look for what caused it to roll down the road. You look to where it is coming from, probably with the expectation that you'll see a kid that kicked the ball running after it.


Why do we allow for teleological explanation when studying the behaviour of a system such as Man. But we do not allow for teleology when studying any other systems. You do not walk into a forest, an ecological system, and presume that it is teleologically driven.

If you are in such a forest and you feel a presence, what is it that you are experiencing? Is it some sense of a teleological process? These feelings do occur, but should we dismiss them as products of an over active imagination or is it possible to get a sense of a teleological process?