Hi SA and Marsha, I hope you both don't mind but I'm going to chime in on your side conversation here as I think it has bearing on Marsha and my conversation on what knowledge is. As Marsha and I have already conversed on this issue I'm going to comment on SA's comments only.
> [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 wrote] > This is why I don't think we can restrict > something like knowledge or reality upon any one > level. Knowledge is but one aspect of reality. In my view reality is value, knowledge is intellectual patterns of value. [SA again] > 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. Both of these two things you mention here are intellectual. > 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? I'm not sure what you mean by 'connect' however the MoQ is intellectual patterns describing 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. > [SA wrote] > 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. I can say intellectually that it would be an experience of very little freedom and if you really want to experience it you can kill yourself. [SA] > The inorganic level > experience that emerges upon the organic level is an > organic level experience of what the inorganic level > is like. According to the MOQ the organic level emerges from the inorganic level. > > [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. As I've said before knowledge is a set of intellectual patterns of value. SA, if you look at an earlier post of mine to Marsha under this subject you see why I say knowledge is on the intellectual level only. > > [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. My definition of Epistemology according to the E/O thread: "Thus, the MOQ perspective is that epistemologically, quality is the source of Intellectual patterns of value." > > [Marsha] >> Is knowing how to bake a pie knowing something? > [SA] > Yes. If the baking has been acquired purely on the social level then no (unlikely), if it has an intellectual component then 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? > > [SA] > To locate 'knowledge' or 'where knowing exists' > is answered as: value. 'where knowing exists' is on the intellectual level. [SA] > 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. I agree. Cheers, David. 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/
