[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[MarshaV]

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ham Priday
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 12:57 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Philosophy and Philosophology


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.

Marsha:
Should I repeat one more time my old and unattractive, but accurate,
description of myself.  Myself is a thought-flow of ever-changing,
interrelated and interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and
intellectual, static patterns of value RESPONDING to Dynamic Quality.  Those
patterns have a unique interrelationship with other associated patterns
within consciousness, but a similarity across the social level's
construction of reality.

Ham:
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".

Marsha:
Physics is phun.  
    

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

Ham:
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.

Marsha
TRUTH?  Isn't TRUTH a metaphysical concept too?  And "known" is epistemology
which is a branch of metaphysics, yes?  Can "known" be experienced?  Is that
a sane question?  


> 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.

Ham:
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.

Marsha:
I am not being testy. You are wonderful.  I am laughing at the sanity of it
all.  Is there no place for humor in philosophy?  I challenge, with an
incredible lightness of being, the truth of your premise that there is an
immutable uncreated source.  Dynamic Quality is indivisible, undefinable and
unknowable, but it can be experienced.    



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

Whatever.

Peace,
Ham



Peace, wisdom, love and trust,
Marsha