Hi Marsha, I think it's important to note the distinction between knowledge being an Intellectual pattern of value and the source of knowledge; quality.
You also raise the question of social patterns being knowledge as well. This problem to me is similar to the problem MD was having with the distinction between the intellectual level and the social level which culminated in the following letter from RMP to Paul Turner: http://moq.org/forum/Pirsig/LetterFromRMPSept2003.html I agree with these sentiments held here and think that the broader ranging these words are made to reach the less clarity that can be found. For example, 'knowledge' could be taken to mean a dogs 'knowledge' that he will get a bone when called, or 'knowledge' of a water molecule of those around it. I think if left on the intellectual level the word knowledge is left with greater clarity than anywhere else. Cheers, David. On 22/06/2007, at 10:44 PM, MarshaV wrote: > > > David, > > Thank you very much. I did get as far as clear definitions, but > after that much confusion. Your post has help > considerable. Presently, I have one additional question. Would the > source of knowledge be exclusively the Intellectual Level, or Social > & Intellectual Levels (both being of the mind)? Both seems right > because there was knowledge before the Intellectual Level evolved, > but that might reflect my misunderstanding. > > Marsha > > > > At 08:05 AM 6/22/2007, you wrote: >> Hi Marsha, >> >> I find it confusing too. And I've put off looking into it further, >> but now is as good as time as any to look into it. So I tried the >> dictionary, it wasn't any clearer, so I tried the poor mans >> encyclopaedia - Wikipedia. It actually gives both concepts with many >> example questions so I'll answer a select few of them below. >> >> Before I do however, I should mention I don't think there is a single >> question which can divide both concepts like you request as both >> concepts are their own questions themselves. >> >> >> >> Epistemology: >> ============= >> "What do you know?" >> >> That Quality is fundamental and the source of all things. From this >> quality a metaphysics is born called the MOQ. >> >> "How do you know it?" >> >> From experience. >> >> "What is knowledge?" >> >> Knowledge is static patterns of Intellectual value. >> >> >> Ontology: >> ======== >> "What is existence?" >> >> static quality capable of apprehending DQ. >> >> "Is existence a property?" >> >> Among other things, yes. >> >> "What does it mean to say something does not exist?" >> >> It means you are not talking empirically. Because some thing is >> static quality and thus it exists. >> >> "Why are we here?" >> >> Because of good. >> >> "Why does anything exist, rather than nothingness?" >> >> Mu. Both anything and nothing exists. >> >> >> It would appear to me Marsha, that epistemology is about the source >> of knowledge. Thus, the MOQ perspective is that epistemologically, >> quality is the source of Intellectual patterns of value. Meanwhile, >> ontology is about the source of existence. The MOQ perspective on >> this is that ontologically quality is the source of everything. >> >> Hope this makes things clearer for you. >> >> Cheers, >> >> David. >> >> On 22/06/2007, at 9:01 PM, MarshaV wrote: >> >>> >>> Greetings, >>> >>> Hmmmm >>> >>> I'm looking for the differences in evaluating the MOQ from a >>> ontological p-o-v versus an epistemological p-o-v. Maybe with an >>> example of a question that might demonstrate the difference in >>> answers. I find this confusing. >>> >>> Marsha >>> >>> > > > 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/
