Hi SA, > > > [SA wrote] >> 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? > [SA clarified] > '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.
Agree. [SA continued] > Spontaniety and > particularity are helpful emergent and distinctive > traits. A leaf is a leaf, and the hows and whys of dq > (spontaniety). I agree. I don't know if I'd call thinking about a question 'spontaneous' though. > [SA] > I don't know if when I die if I totally transform > into just inorganic level. I just don't know. Me either. I would guess the static biological, social and intellectual levels of SA that are capable of responding to DQ would dissolve back into DQ. > [SA] > 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. I agree. > > >>> [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. > [SA] > 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. So you've changed your mind? > 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. As you know I'd restrict 'knowledge' to the intellectual level. However 'mental' seems to have biological and negative social connotations. I would hazard a guess RMP avoids the term in Lila for this reason. 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/
