Quoting Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi Platt -- > > > Knowledge presumes a knower, just as a piano presumes > > a pianist. There's no need to emphasize the obvious. > Apparently there is such a need here. Knowledge and intelligence are > being attributed to libraries, cities, genetics and vaccines, none of > which are "knowers".
Common knowledge (not intelligence) is being attributed to social level patterns because it is found in the memories of many people who comprise a society. It is also found in such repositories as libraries and cities which are social institutions. (I don't know where you got genetics and vaccines.) > I'm sorry Platt, but conscious awareness is the 'sine qua non' > of experienced reality, and I can't let this distorted word usage pass > without voicing my objections -- even to Horse, who has yet to respond > to my latest post. Yes, to "experienced" reality. But that is a redundancy. But, I am not an Idealist like you. A termite depends on many things for its existence, but my experiencing it is not one of them. > Incidentally, I wouldn't say that a piano necessarily presumes a > pianist One could conceivably constuct a device that is "unplayable". > How 'bout we say, "music presumes a composer"? A piano by definition is not unplayable unless hopelessly out of tune. As for music, I hear a cardinal singing. Who is the composer? > > You restrict information to raw data, putting to fine a point > > on the difference between knowledge and information. > > Both presume a knower, as in, "Do you know the price of > > gasoline today?". > No. The price of gasoline, as you well know, is a variable piece of > information determined by the market. Its exact value at any particular > time is probably not known, hence does not presume a "knower". > Information coming in over the news wires is known only to the > originator until it is acquired and interpreted as knowledge by those > who receive it. The distinction is a very important one, especially > when presenting an epistemology. Who says knowledge has to be constant? As for "exact value," do you presume it exists without anybody knowing it? > > A world of knowledge exists in my encyclopedia although > > there is much there that I don't know. Fortunately, the > > existence of that knowledge doesn't depend on me. > "World of knowledge" is a euphemistic expression which suggests that > everyone can absorb the totality of information printed in your > encyclopedia. Of course this is impossible, and the expression is > misleading. As you would argue, individuals put this information > together, and not one of them knows it all. A body of information is > not intelligence until it becomes part of an individual's knowledge. I don't suggest everyone can absorb all the knowledge in an encyclopedia at all. But, there's nothing misleading about the knowledge being there. Further, knowledge has little to do with intelligence. > > You miss the point. Biological knowledge is what my cat, UTOE, > > knows. Social knowledge is aptly described by Pirsig: > > > > "Elementary static distinctions, between such entities as "before" and > > "after" and between "like" and "unlike" grow into enormously complex > > patterns of knowledge that are transmitted from generation to > > generation as the mythos, the culture in which we live." (Lila, 9) > It is the conscious mind, not "growing patterns", that discerns > differences and similarities. Before the mind can do that, the patterns of distinctions must be learned. That's what "growing patterns" refers to -- learning. > The dissemination of "knowledge patterns" is an objective > process, like distributing newspapers. Better called "education." > Publishing information, or passing > it down from one generation to the next, is no assurance that it will be > transformed into knowledge. > You of all people should realize this, Platt. Some of it will, some of it won't, depending on the individual, her mind and her environment. > > That's why Horse's suggestion to substitute "common knowledge" as > > a social level pattern instead of arguing about "collective > > consciousness" and "collective intelligence" is valuable. It fits > > the MOQ to a tee, not to mention that it harmonizes with common > > sense. > Common sense, no, though it may feel good. But you've just explained > why the MoQ author found it expedient to promulgate a myth. I'm sure your Essence philosophy "feels good" to you. > I fear the end is nigh. I fear it is too, although the election of a conservative in France who is not afraid to call Muslim rioters "scum" offers a glimmer of hope. :-) Best regards, Platt 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/
