[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[Ham Priday]

Greetings Marsha --


> Knowledge is what we have learned from _past_ experience.
> By 'we' do you mean a collective consciousness, like a collective
> consciousness of knowing that might be found in a science textbook?
> I have never seen an atom so I must rely on scientists who have
> seen an atom to share their knowledge.  But wait a minute,
> they haven't seen an atom either.  What experience?  Who's
> experience?

Experience once integrated into memory is "past", if you have to get 
technical.  But that does not
impugn the fact that we learn from experience.  And, Marsha, you have 
discussed philosophy with me long enough to know that I don't believe in any 
kind of "collective consciousness."  "We" means you and I and every other 
conscious individual.

Yes, physicists sometimes have to accept "plotting data" or the trajectory 
of quantum particles that they can't directly observe.  But the evidence 
that such particles are in motion is still "experiential".

> Can a metaphysical concept be known or is a metaphysical concept
> an unknown about the unknown?  (Where's that rabbit hole?)

A concept can be "known" (indeed, must be known in order to be explained). 
But the TRUTH of a  metaphysical theory cannot be empirically PROVED.

> Is there a basis for denying change, evolution, or differences
> after first imputing an ultimate source?  What was the basis for
> imputing an 'ultimate source'?  Preference?  Ham prefers an
> ultimate source.  Marsha does not prefer an ultimate source.

> Ham:
> Thus, the concept of Dynamic Quality as the primary empirical reality is a
> theory, as is the hypothesis of an immutable uncreated source.
>
> Marsha:
> 'Thus', like in 'therefore'?  Was there a rational argument somewhere that 
> I
> missed?  I seem to have missed that truth in that underlying premise.

Down, girl!  (People who get testy with me usually live to regret it.)
As you well know, "therefore", "thus", "hence", "ergo" all have the same 
meaning -- namely, the conclusion to be drawn from the stated premises.

> I'll let Joe take it from here, but I confess I have great faith in his
> dividing by zero.

Whatever.

Peace,
Ham