Hi Marsha and SA, I've responded to this post under the topic 'What is knowledge?'.
Cheers, David. On 24/06/2007, at 2:49 PM, MarshaV wrote: > 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/ 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/
