OK Chris proceeding carefully ... IG had said "We all use knowledge (and our intellect, reasoning) for many everyday purposes." CI replied "True. Everything is combined."
[IG] OK, but "combined" is a bit of a blunt instrument - interconnected in many different ways perhaps ... more later. IG had said "We are not all pushing the blue-sky boundaries of human knowledge with our intellect." CI replied "False. In a sense. If by intellect you mean the intellectual level, and it being at work with either one of us I'd say that all it is doing is expanding knowledge - whatever level that knowledge may be on, so weather it is contemplating on the nature of our partner or the nature of the universe it doesn't matter. It's goal is always knowledge - EVEN IF the way it's working is directed by the conditions given by the lower levels." and " And so I don't drop the knowledge for knowledge's sake alone bit just yet, because I haven't been given a good reason to - just yet." [IG] OK, but "in a sense" becomes the $64,000 question. But at least that's progress I think the statement "it is expanding knowledge" still comes with a "what for" question, and the answer to that comes with another "why, what for" question ad infinitum, so let's maybe not go there. I can't see knowledge as a goal in itself yet (and I wasn't alone in that) so the onus was on you to explain further - not just re-state - particularly as you needed the "in a sense" caveat and a stack of conditional "ifs". But to be constructive ... If all you are saying is that the "what for" of knowledge - comes from the interconnected combination of social & intellectual patterns and activities - but from neither alone - we agreed already. Then we are simply re-stating the problem we have of distinguishing those two levels - knowledge exists in both (in patterns across both) - so knowledge is not a definitive feature of the intellectual either (I think we already knew that too ?). So when I suggest "dropping" the knowledge for knowledge sake angle - I just mean temporarily, don't give it up, just suspend it whilst we address the social / intellectual distinction in Mati's thread - and re-introduce it there IF and WHEN it adds to the argument. Whether you assertion is true or not is a semantic issue, but one thing seems clear it does not provide a distinguishing of definitive feature of the intellectual level - even if it is true of both knowledge and intellect. Regards Ian > > Where do you want to take it from here? =) > 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/ > 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/
