Chris:
> I myself tend to discard the symbol manipulation
> explanation because of
> the - as I see it - quite obvious reason that this is not
> in conflict with
> anything. The MOQ is a moral order, as we all know, and the
> different levels
> have more or less competing "views" on Quality
> and how to follow it. Thus I
> am inclined to thing along the paths of
> "What is not by it's _fundamental nature_ in
> service of either the
> inorganic, the biological or the social level?"
SA: What do you mean here by discarding symbol manipulation due to it not "in
conflict with anything"? For then this "conflict with anything" might also be
revealing to what you mean even further, if you could explain further, thanks.
Chris:
> As I said - manipulation of symbols doesn't really cut
> it for me - where is
> the FUNDAMENTAL conflict?
SA: Do you need conflict? This is probably not what you mean, so, if you
could restate this another way I would appreciate it.
Chris:
> Knowledge for Knowledge's sake. Alone.
SA: I like this. I don't know if this explains everything about intellectual
patterns, but this clearly is in that direction, if not the way in the
intellectual door, so to speak. Some questions for further clarification and
thinking on this: What is wisdom? Different from knowledge? Same?
What I like about this, is, many different kinds of knowledgeable pursuits
exist (also read: different kinds of knowledge), yet, they are still knowledge
based or in other words, they are still knowledge. Thus, many different kinds
of intellectual patterns.
SA
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
