[MD] What is knowledge?

[David Harding]

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.