[MD] Step One

[118]

John opined:
My opinion is that classifying the intellect is only possible with
differentiation and opposition.  If there were no aspects, intellectual and
romantic, then the intellect would not realize intellect nor would the
romantic feel any good about love.  See what I mean?  In a sense, knowledge
requires differentiation.  You can ask Ham about it, if you don't believe
me.  I think he gets what I'm saying, but probably has the right label as to
epistemological vs. ontological dependencies.

Mark suggests:
Yes, I am familiar with the Ham model.  The question would be
differentiation from what?  Within the intellect there is differentiation,
but I believe you are discussing the differentiation of intellect from
other.  We certainly need a background and some structure to differentiate
from such a background, in the same way that letters are differentiated from
the paper that holds them.  This can be considered opposition, but that kind
of notion may not be helpful, because there may not be opposition, but
projection.  This in a way jibes with Ham except that the perspective is a
bit different.

In my recent readings to understand how words are being used herein, I came
across the term Wletanschauung.  After I got over my childish sex humor
concerning the word itself, I read a little more.  The applications of
epistemology and ontology to our Wletanschauung is what you are talking
about, I now understand.  The how and the why as different approaches, the
shape and what underlies it.  While zooming around on the net I came across
the following page from a computer department in Norway:
 http://www.idi.ntnu.no/about/groups.php
which gives a layman's introduction.  I'm not sure of the accuracy but it
provided some definitions (you know how I hate Wiki).

John:
Thus most of what we learn is unmeasurable in an absolute way, but is
knowable in a relative and nebulous way.  I guess a radical empiricist would
say that "knowing in a relatively nebulous" way is the moment of experience
and reality, and I'd agree.  But I'd point out that it takes just as much
idealistic faith to believe that, as it does so many other so-called
superstitions, that they ought not to turn their noses so sharply up at
absolute idealism.

Mark:
Yes, measurement requires a standard to which other things are relative,
therefore cannot be absolute.  Better and worse are relative measurements
and while seeming nebulous can also be considered crystal clear.  The moment
of experience, I believe, is crystal clear. Where it becomes nebulous is in
the translation.  I took some classes on Hegel.  The use of dialectics is
one way to understand the underlying.  I assume that Quality as the
underlying source could be postulated, so I do not have a problem with
absolute idealism so long as it furthers the cause of MOQ.  Again, spoken
like a layman trying to use the accepted terminology.

Much fun, Mark, Mucho gracias,

Juan Carlos,