[MD] E/O

[David Harding]

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/