[MD] knowledge

[MarshaV]

Steve,

I'm not arguing from a Pragmatist's point-of-view.  So bear with me 
if I don't apply the correct lingo.  Static patterns represent the past, 
though, as events they are applied to a field of dynamic quality which 
alters and renews them.   DQ is unknowable!  -  

No, no, no...  I am not qualified to play this circle game.  If you know 
anything about Buddhism, you have heard the expression: form is 
emptiness, emptiness is form.  It's all Buddha and Buddha is empty. 
I translate that into Quality is static quality, static quality is Quality.  
Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable.  Static patterns 
are the ghosts of past events. 

I have said that the only way the Ultimate Truth can be approached is
by discovering what is false.  Maybe I will say that the only way 
Quality can be approached is by discovering that static patterns are
ghosts.
 
Knowledge-that, knowledge-how might be helpful, but I haven't given 
either much thought.  The two seem to be entangled, don't you think?   

Marsha 








On May 11, 2010, at 10:34 AM, Steven Peterson wrote:

> Hi Marsha, Matt, all,
> 
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:45 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
>> I don't see how DQ can be whatever one has in one's mind to make it.
>> DQ is unknowable.
> 
> Steve:
> DQ is in a way unknowable but it is also the only thing we ever know.
> It is the only thing there is to know. Hmmm....
> 
> RMP:
> Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can
> be described is a
> process of defining Dynamic Quality. But once the definitions emerge
> they are static
> patterns and no longer apply to Dynamic Quality. So one can say
> correctly that Dynamic
> Quality is both infinitely definable and undefinable because
> definition never exhausts it.
> 
> 
> Steve:
> I think Matt's reference to "know-how" versus "know-that" can help
> solve this koan. Pragmatically, to know a thing is to be able to use
> it and put it in relation to other things. This is know-how knowing
> that applies to everything--even DQ. We DO have know-how knowledge of
> DQ because we know how to experience quality. In fact, we don't even
> know-how to ever not experience quality.
> 
> What we don't have is know-that intellectual knowledge that could ever
> exhaust DQ. Know-that is knowledge about the truth of sentences. In
> fact, it seems that many of the things (if not all) that we say in a
> know-that way about DQ are simultaneously true and false, so there is
> no know-that knowledge of DQ. There is only know-that knowledge about
> our know-how knowledge. This is Pirsig's pre-post intellectual
> distinction. Know-how is pre-intellectual and primary. Know-that is
> always secondary because it is knowledge about our know-how rather
> than knowledge of DQ.
> 
> I think at this point though, Matt would ask, "okay, so you have
> created a primary/secondary distinction. What does this distinction do
> for you?" Clearly some have wanted to use it as supporting
> anti-intellectualism. As seconday, it is taken to be inferior. I think
> that is a poor readingt of Pirsig.
> 
> Knowledge-that increases our know-how. Pirsig of ZAMM set out to show
> that classical know-that has its own aesthetic and opens new
> possibilities for know-how and then new know-thats in response to the
> new know-hows in a feeback loop building up analogues upon analogues.
> Intellect, like everything else, has static and dynamic aspects.
> Intellect is not divorced from know-how.
> 
> Knowledge-that doesn't use itself and doesn't create itself.
> Knowledge-that is also always know-how (though only intellectual
> know-how is called knowledge-that.) Knowledge-that is the intellectual
> level in that the set of all intellectual patterns of value is that
> the set of all knowledge-that. Know-how is the dynamic aspect of
> knowledge and can be thought of as being at work on all levels, but on
> other levels, know-how doesn't obtain a static latch as
> knowledge-that. Know-how is maintained through physical "laws,"  DNA,
> or social habits copied from one person to the next.
> 
> In this formulation, knowledge-how is never and can never be out of
> touch with reality. Since knowledge-how is just a particular static
> form of know-how just like DNA or social customs are, it is also
> always a part of reality. The Buddha resides just as comfortably in a
> sentence as at the top of a mountain. Thinking can't take you closer
> to or further from reality, but it can enhance your experience by
> bringing new previously unrealized reality into being.
> 
> Best,
> Steve
> 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/md/archives.html


 
___