Ian Well said!
Joe 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 On 6/26/07, MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 08:42 AM 6/26/2007, you wrote: > >David, Marsha, good thread > > > >I think that "resonance" is also related to David's earlier > >distinction between the patterns that represent our known knowledge > >(our mental patterns, however recorded) and the actual "source" of > >knowledge - what can actually be "known". > > > >My take on that source, the thing that distinguishes it from an > >ontological view of things with properties, is that the source is the > >eptistemic view of knowledge or meaning as the "significance of > >relations between things" - The SOMist problem that MOQ solves as > >David also put it earlier. > > > >Value, quality, is about the significance of relations not "objective > >poesssions". > > > >Ian > > > Ian, > > This problem I'm having dose seem to be obvious to everyone but me. > What is knowledge and how do you separate into two separate levels of > mind? Social - Intellectual, should be simple. Knowledge is > separate little patterns of value. Cow -biological. Lead - > inorganic. watching a soccer game - social. Quantum physics - > intellectual. Knowledge - Huh?????? What kind? Maybe I need to > put it to a rest for the moment. I'm feeling really stupid. Maybe > it's my misunderstanding of 'knowing'. I've always stated that I > really know nothing, and now I'm proving my point. > > Marsha > > p.s. And I've just spent the day with my three-year old grandson > whose questions were an eight-hour bombardment. I need music..... > > > > > 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/ 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/
