[David H.]
> I hope you both don't mind but I'm going to chime
in...
> > [SA wrote]
> > This is why I don't think we can restrict
> > something like knowledge or reality upon any one
> > level.
[David H.]
> Knowledge is but one aspect of reality. In my view
> reality is value, knowledge is intellectual patterns
of value.
I agree.
> [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.
I agree. Intellectual values about inorganic and
organic levels.
[David H.]
> 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?
'Intellectual level of values that are everywhere'
- ?. I can restrict intellectual level distinct from
the other levels. I'm good with that. Intellectual
level can draw from the other levels, but this does
not exploit or subvert the other levels; unless
degeneracy is happening. Spontaniety and
particularity are helpful emergent and distinctive
traits. A leaf is a leaf, and the hows and whys of dq
(spontaniety).
[SA previously]
> > What is the experience like on the inorganic
> level? Maybe that question is answered on the
organic
> level, social and intellectual levels.
[David H.]
> 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.
I don't know if when I die if I totally transform
into just inorganic level. I just don't know.
[David H.]
> According to the MOQ the organic level emerges from
the inorganic > level.
Yes, and the organic level is distinct from the
inorganic. Also, I'd say the inorganic level of a
bird is the inorganic level together with the organic
level. The bird is inorganic level, but also organic
level.
> > [SA previously]
> > Knowledge is social and intellectual here in
> your example, I agree.
[David H.]
> 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.
Yes, knowledge is only intellectual patterns of
value. I was pointing out here that Marsha's example
shows social and intellectual knowledge, and I agreed
her example does show this, but I disagree with her
example. I didn't make myself very clear here. I
agree with you it seems. I must have not come across
very clear. And here I thought you were saying
knowledge is on the social and intellectual levels,
whereas it seems you thought I was saying this. I
don't agree that social is mental. I don't know how
mental fits onto two levels.
woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
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/
