[MD] What is knowledge?

[David Harding]

Hi SA,

On 27/06/2007, at 11:00 PM, Heather Perella wrote:

>      [David H.]
>> 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.
>
>
>      I never did put knowledge with social.  I agreed
> that Marsha's example said knowledge was social,
> because Marsha said knowledge is social in her
> example.  I don't agree with this example.  It was not
> very clear what I was saying, so I let it go.

That's what I thought after I sent the email but it's nice to be sure.

>     Mental is biological due to organic brain, I guess
> is what you mean.  And yes, this would confuse things.
>  I'm also for putting the four levels together.  When
> I talk about all four levels I say: static quality or
> static patterns of value or static patterns.

Me too.

> We could
> also refer to say two or only three levels at a time,
> but definitions would have to be exact. The MoQ does
> ask for precision.  So, agreement that mental could be
> organic, social and intellect would have to be a solid
> agreement, but then that's only one level away from
> saying Mental is Static Quality and I'm not for that
> at all at this time. I guess mental for social, mob
> would be an example of such?  But here, mental is
> being thrown around as a very general, imprecise word
> according to the MOQ, I'd say.

Yes, and I agree with you and that is why I said RMP probably avoided  
it for this reason.  The MOQ aims to be precise, and 'mental'  
presently IMHO has biological connotations with the scientific aspect  
of the brain. It also has negative social implications in that  
someone who acts out of hand is negatively called 'mental'.  Both of  
these things have little to do with a description of intellectual  
patterns of value and in order to be precise in it's description, the  
MOQ does not use this term IMHO.

Cheers,

David.