John opined: My opinion is that classifying the intellect is only possible with differentiation and opposition. If there were no aspects, intellectual and romantic, then the intellect would not realize intellect nor would the romantic feel any good about love. See what I mean? In a sense, knowledge requires differentiation. You can ask Ham about it, if you don't believe me. I think he gets what I'm saying, but probably has the right label as to epistemological vs. ontological dependencies.
Mark suggests: Yes, I am familiar with the Ham model. The question would be differentiation from what? Within the intellect there is differentiation, but I believe you are discussing the differentiation of intellect from other. We certainly need a background and some structure to differentiate from such a background, in the same way that letters are differentiated from the paper that holds them. This can be considered opposition, but that kind of notion may not be helpful, because there may not be opposition, but projection. This in a way jibes with Ham except that the perspective is a bit different. In my recent readings to understand how words are being used herein, I came across the term Wletanschauung. After I got over my childish sex humor concerning the word itself, I read a little more. The applications of epistemology and ontology to our Wletanschauung is what you are talking about, I now understand. The how and the why as different approaches, the shape and what underlies it. While zooming around on the net I came across the following page from a computer department in Norway: http://www.idi.ntnu.no/about/groups.php which gives a layman's introduction. I'm not sure of the accuracy but it provided some definitions (you know how I hate Wiki). John: Thus most of what we learn is unmeasurable in an absolute way, but is knowable in a relative and nebulous way. I guess a radical empiricist would say that "knowing in a relatively nebulous" way is the moment of experience and reality, and I'd agree. But I'd point out that it takes just as much idealistic faith to believe that, as it does so many other so-called superstitions, that they ought not to turn their noses so sharply up at absolute idealism. Mark: Yes, measurement requires a standard to which other things are relative, therefore cannot be absolute. Better and worse are relative measurements and while seeming nebulous can also be considered crystal clear. The moment of experience, I believe, is crystal clear. Where it becomes nebulous is in the translation. I took some classes on Hegel. The use of dialectics is one way to understand the underlying. I assume that Quality as the underlying source could be postulated, so I do not have a problem with absolute idealism so long as it furthers the cause of MOQ. Again, spoken like a layman trying to use the accepted terminology. Much fun, Mark, Mucho gracias, Juan Carlos, 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/md/archives.html
