[MD] knowledge

[John Carl]

Steve,

You generous poster of words, you...

I'm trying to sort out epistemology (Pirsig's idealism where quality
> gives rise to ideas which gives rise to matter) from ontology (radical
> empiricism, reality = quality cut into dyamic/static) and cosmology
> (evolution of value patterns) in the MOQ. Maybe you can help?



Be glad to.  I like you Steve.

Here's the thing.  There must be some sort of life-producing patterns in
existence, because, ta-dah!, here we are.  We don't understand this
life-patterning process completely because that would be an intellectual
encapsulation of that which is creative of intellectual encapsulation.  But
we can sorta see its outlines through the intersubjective comparisons of
experience and that which is conducive to life, we call "Quality".  Based
upon our own perspectives as thinking beings which value thinking.

Don't really use the terms epistemology and ontology much except when I'm in
a bad mood or trying to show off to people I don't like, but I think that
pretty much explains everything anyway and there will be a short Q & A after
the session.



> Steve:
> I don't think we can make any more intellectual sense of
> "pre-intellectual" experience epistemology-wise than we can about
> "pre-social" or "pre-subatomic particals." I take the pre/post
> business to be about ontology. Epistemology is always "post" or the
> process of defining Quality. (recall LC: "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.")
>
>
See?  That's why I like you Steve.  Not only do you understand when you
don't understand, but you also understand when understanding is logically
non-understandable.

Yay you.


The knower is also always a static
> pattern with the capacity for dynamic change.
>


Well "always" is questionable.  I'd offer ya some empirical evidence from
the member of this list in refutation, but why bother.

>
>
> > Steve said:
> > What I was trying to set up was knowledge-that as the
> > static aspect intellect and knowledge-how as the dynamic
> > aspect of intellect. By analogy, on the biological level, the
> > static aspect is DNA encoding while the dynamic aspect is
> > biological know-how.
> >
>


I appreciate the know-how from know-that distinction, and see it as useful
in defining intellect and intelligence.



> > Matt:
> > Hunh.  I guess I would need to know what, exactly,
> > intellectual know-how is, as distinguished from
> > knowing-that.
>
> Steve:
> I was trying to reconcile know-how/know-that with the MOQ, but it was
> probably a bad idea at the start.
>
>

Not a bad idea at all, if it evolves Quality formulation.  And it did for me
at least.  I'm grateful.

 Wish I could stay for more.  Lunch is over.

John