Horse -- (For some unknown reason, I've failed five times over two days in posting this response to your 5/13 message. Since it may be due to an error in the address line, I'm recopying it here from a post to Ron that did get through. Sorry for the delay.)
[Ham, previously]: > I am not concerned with "types" of knowledge. [Horse]: > Why not? If it happens to conflict with your world view > then maybe you are the one who's got it wrong. There are > variant types of all sorts of similar things which are classified > according to their characteristics and contexts. > In the MoQ these are called values. You asked if we had "any thoughts" on this topic. The point of philosophical discussion is not to separate who's "got it right" from who's "got it wrong." Philosophy is not an empirically verifiable science; it is the development of a reality perspective for consideration on its own merits. I believe I have given ample consideration to the tenets of the MoQ over the past three years, thanks in large measure to the information your forum has provided. Having come to the MD with a different worldview, I've discovered several aspects of the MoQ that are irreconcilable not only with Essentialism but with the traditional body of philosophical and scientific thought. Some controversial ideas are to be expected, inasmuch as every philosopher seeks to establish a new or novel approach as a legacy. However, I'm particularly troubled when I see theories advanced to justify a philosophical thesis that are not supported by common sense, traditional logic, or experimental evidence. The idea of a "collective intelligence" is a notable example. The recurring debate over it suggests to me that it is fraught with problems even among the staunchest of Pirsig's followers. We can choose to define words in any number of "special" ways, but the concept they express must ultimately stand the test of reason and cogency. Thus, while "knowledge" and "intelligence" are both terms that can be applied to the collection and communication of information, their usage in this context does not imply cognizant awareness. "How a city develops and persists over many decades" is not the result of conscious knowledge, nor does "a baby gain biological knowledge ...when it's vaccinated or catches a cold." A city can decay or develop from public neglect or support but not from "collective awareness". It is not scientifically supportable that the transmission of genetic information or the infusion of biological sera is sensible knowledge. A philosopher does not have poetic license to distort common word meanings in order to foster a mythical notion. [Horse]: > And how do you get to know something, anything. > You receive information, in some way, filter it, assimilate > that information, compare to previous instances and act > on it (or not) accordingly. Knowing is a process and that > process is entirely dependent upon the flow of information. Knowing is entirely dependent on the cognizant mind, the innate ability of the individual to sense value differentially and objectify it as proprietary experience. A process is an objectivized event perceived in time. Machines can print newspapers, telephone lines can transmit messages, implanted T-cells can alter tissue formation, but without proprietary cognizance there is no knowledge of these processes. [Horse]: > You're quite correct here Ham, information and knowledge > are not the same thing. However they are completely > interdependent. Without information you have no means of > attaining knowledge and without knowledge there can be no > information. > The raw data of information is transformed into knowledge and > dependent upon the type of raw data the type of knowledge will > differ qualitatively. There are many different types of information > and they are stored, filtered and transmitted in different ways. > How they are received and filtered and by what gives rise to > the type of knowledge into which they are transformed. You assume the primacy of experiential knowledge over awareness. I do not. I believe our differences are as simple as that. Reality for me is not Value or Quality broken down into patterns and levels, one of which is intelligence. Value is what binds the dichotomy of existence together and is sensed relationally from the git-go. I defer to a "higher power" -- an absolute, unconditional source. Everything (else) is relative and differentiated. For a time I was led to believe that the MoQ's author held a similar view. When it became clear that he did not acknowledge a primary source, but was only concerned with empirical reality as evolutionary process, I realized that his metaphysics was incomplete. It leaves time and space to Einstein's relativity and reduces the role of the value-sensible creature to that of an "emerging byproduct" of biological evolution. [Horse]: > [T]ransmission of information in the form of behaviour is > observable and reproducible from one generation to another > and is not merely biological. This behavioural information is > transformed into the knowledge required for survival patterns > to persist. ... > This social information is transformed into social knowledge > as any other form of information is transformed into knowledge > but, in MoQ terms, at the social level. Similar patterns can be > seen in other similar structures. Social knowledge is meaningless to me, as it is inseparable from cultural patterns historically established by individual members of a community. What you're describing is an anthropological view of civilization, not a philosophy. It forces an epistemology that defies common sense and human understanding. I submit that this confusion has impeded the development of the MoQ as a workable belief system. When you say "that humans have proprietary awareness is neither here nor there," you are shortsighting the valuistic core of Pirsig's empirical reality. Indeed, were it not for proprietary awareness, there would be no existence, let alone a philosophical debate about the meaning of Quality. Essentially estranged, Ham 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/
