[Marsha]
> You tell me what YOU think.
> For me in the beginning is value/experience. Other
> than an unrelenting curiosity, I'm not sure I need
to know
> exactly which patterns go in which levels.
This is why I don't think we can restrict
something like knowledge or reality upon any one
level. That would exclude a level that has been able
to be known. Known by valuing. Being alert to how
atoms rove is to understand that's a bird flying by.
The levels help distinct a certain aspect of a bird.
The inorganic level of the bird or the organic level
of a bird. This line of thinking may open the door to
definition of any kind being intellectual, thus, what
is definition? Abstract thought is the intellectual
level, and humans experience this level, but since we
experience this level does that mean we connect with
an intellectual level of values that are everywhere?
[Marsha]
> Well, I would like to be able to understand and
explain this new MOQ > worldview, but I mostly paint.
The people around me don't want to > talk about
metaphysical matters or philosophy which is
frustrating. > It just seems to me, if all is SPOVs:
thoughts, trees, atoms, rocks,
> geometry, dogs, water, philosophy are patterns, then
these patterns > should not be described as material
objects with value attached.
> Everything I see, hear, taste, touch, smell & think
is value/experience > and may become or intersect with
SPOVs.
Yes, I agree. These SPOVs are experience. An
experience that is quality. Therefore this experience
is not solely me, this human being, but an experience
upon four levels. For instance, as a human being I'm
able to experience inorganic to intellectual levels.
What is the experience like on the inorganic level?
Maybe that question is answered on the organic level,
social and intellectual levels. The inorganic level
experience that emerges upon the organic level is an
organic level experience of what the inorganic level
is like.
[Marsha]
> No you tell me how you would define knowledge. Is
it patterns of
> abstract symbol manipulation only, or might it be
patterns like
> knowing you mother's name too. That's social
custom, but isn't a
> name also a symbol for something else (mother). I
don't know for
> sure.
Knowledge is social and intellectual here in your
example, I agree.
[Marsha]
> Epistemology deals with 'what we know' and 'how we
know
> it'.
We know all levels, and all levels are how we
know. Static patterns are the reflective aspect of
dq. Static patterns is dq awakened. SPOV are dq
knowing itself.
[Marsha]
> Is knowing how to bake a pie knowing something?
Yes.
[Marsha]
> If it's not knowing, what is it? Is knowing that a
pie falls into the
> category of desserts knowing? You're asking me for
information
> that I'm asking about?
To locate 'knowledge' or 'where knowing exists'
is answered as: value. To mystic base this answer
would be to say that any reality of knowledge is wrong
to discuss, talk about and thus think (subject based)
the MOQ debunks. To logical positivist base this
answer would be to say knowledge is based in objects,
and the MOQ debunks this too.
[Marsha]
> What is it that you think I'm missing? You tell me.
> I'm interested.
I'm sorry, but I thought I was missing something.
[Marsha]
> I'm going to watch The Thomas Crowne Affair (new
> version). It's one of my favorite movies. Do you
know it?
Yes, and I love that last song in the movie.
It's a wonderful tune. The tune goes along so well
with that last big event, too.
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
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/
