At 07:56 PM 6/23/2007, you wrote: > [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. > > [SA] > 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?
A metaphysics seems like an intellectual game that tries to explain reality, everything inside and outside of the mind. Pheadrus saw a better game than the old version. We have chosen to play his game, and the object seems to be to figure out the rules so that we can decide if the game fits our liking (higher value). If it is of higher value, it will make a better set of rules for the game of living a life. > [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. Since the experience at the inorganic level is outside mind, I don't think I have an answer for what those spovs experience. All I can know is that it is the first level of spov. Science seems to be about figuring out what these patterns do and how they can be manipulated. But I don't think science can know absolutely. A better worldview might help them. > > > [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. > > [SA] > Knowledge is social and intellectual here in your >example, I agree. In Phaedrus's MOQ the definition of 'knowledge' might have changed. > [Marsha] > > Epistemology deals with 'what we know' and 'how we > >know it'. > [SA] > 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. Do we KNOW? What do we know about knowing? > [Marsha] > > Is knowing how to bake a pie knowing something? > > Yes. Well, there's the definition of knowing within the MOQ, and there's directly knowing. My interest is trying figure out the rules first, and matching it to my experience. My experience is definitely limited so that is tough, but a stimulating challenge. > [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? > > > [SA] >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. EXACTLY!!! My limitations include a limited knowledge of philosophy. I really like philosophy, so I'm trying to play the game. The MOQ represents a better worldview in trying to live a life too. I think. I think it has great value. > [Marsha] > > What is it that you think I'm missing? You tell me. > > I'm interested. > > [SA] > I'm sorry, but I thought I was missing something. Just trying to figure out the rules. > [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 Sometimes your post do seem to be dancing on my head. That's not necessarily a bad thing. 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/
