Greetings Ian, Close enough. My mind was in a state of (not deep) oscillation. Letting it go now. Thanks.
Marsha At 12:29 PM 6/28/2007, you wrote: >Hi Marsha, perhaps I could address your questions another way .... > >The distinction being made between knowledge as "the known" and the >source of "what might be knowable". > >As soon as we "reduce" knowledge to "the known" - objectivising it, we >are undoubtedly intellectualising it ... ie this is intellectual >knowledge, intellectual patterns. > >The stuff that is knowable (valu-able) is found in all sorts of >relationships (patterns) across any and all the levels. We can >experience (know, in the biblical sense ?) these patterns in ways that >don't require us to intellectualise them - and if we accept them that >way. As soon as we talk about them, and share our descriptions and >debate them - we are intellectualising concepts. Which need not be a >problem, provided we don't forget the distinction between the (any >level) experience of knowing and the (intellectual) description of the >known. > >I suspect you may be having trouble with this point, because it is >already in your nature to value the knowing, rather than see the >intellectual view as dominant. > >The latter is something we sciento-techno-geeks probably suffer from. > >Did that help ? >ie you're not the one that needs help ;-) >Ian 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/
