At 06:54 PM 6/23/2007, you wrote: > > > >At 02:33 PM 6/23/2007, you wrote: > > >Hello everyone > > > > > > > > >Considering the question: > > > > > >"Does Lila have Quality?" > > > > > > >From an ontological point of view people and things have properties. > >They > > >have a nature that exists outside the mind, so Lila has Quality or she > > >doesn't. From an epistemic point of view people and things have a nature > > >that exists inside the mind. As people of the 21st century Western > >culture, > > >we think, ane so again, Lila has Quality or she doesn't. > > > > > >The MOQ tells us Quality has Lila. "Nothing dominates Quality." The MOQ > > >offers a more expanded point of view, one that looks at ontological and > > >epistemic points of view and states that they are both right... in a > >limited > > >context. Ontologically, inorganic and biological patterns of value have a > > >nature that exists physically. Epistemically, social and intellectual > > >patterns of value have a nature that exists mentally. > > > > > >Or so I think... > > > > > >Any thoughts, anyone? > > > >Hi Dan, > > > >Are the patterns of value that exists mentally, in both the social > >and intellectual levels, 'knowing' and belonging to epistemology? > > > [Dan] >I think the MOQ would say that there are different ways of knowing. We know >the taste of an apple when we bite into it but it is impossible to explain >that taste intellectually. That said, I believe the MOQ would say that >epistomology deals with intellectual level knowledge and social level >belief.
I might ask if knowing how to make an apple pie is knowing or belief, but I won't. I haven't thought about this enough to ask. > > > >Believe it or not, I was trying to discover why the answers that you > >and Arlo gave in a different thread were so different, but both > >seemed so right. > >Arlo wrote: "With this in mind, I do not think the MOQ separates the art >work from the creation process. Indeed, just the opposite, the MOQ reminds >of that they are precisely INSEPARABLE." > >I think that is right. However, if memory serves correct, Arlo was using >"INSEPARABLE" in a pre-MOQ (ZMM) context. The first cut of subject/object >metaphysics (SOM) supposes a separation that the MOQ replaces with Dynamic >Quality and static quality. There is no separation as such in the MOQ. Thanks for offering this consideration. > >I thought maybe it was epistemology versus > >ontology. > >I think that is an astute observation. > > >But maybe it was just my inadequate question to begin > >with. > >It was a very challenging question, at least for me. I'd still like to look at this myself. > >Thanks for responding. > >You're welcome. And thank you too. > >Dan All fun and games, 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/
