At 06:35 AM 4/22/2009, you wrote:
Hi Marsha,
2009/4/22 MarshaV <[email protected]>
>
> Greetings Will,
>
> There is no true me. (T)ruth is the discovery that I am false. Yes?
>
you are a pattern of value - and you said all patterns are true - are you
eating your words now?
Greetings KO,
It is a matter of conventionally true and Absolutely
True. Conventionally, I am (boringly) an ever-changing, collection
of interrelated and interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and
intellectual, static patterns of value responding to Dynamic
Quality. That would be the uncapitalized version of true. (T)rue
with a capitalized 'T' is that the _independent (inherent) existence_
of such a self is false because it has dependent origination and is a
conceptual construct. The 'self's' existence is dependent on
thought. There is no contradiction, but I may be very poor at explaining.
I just want it to be understood clearly,neutrinos and oxytocin aside, that
> Science has investigated and studied how to manufacture desire, manufacture
> the "wanting", public manipulation; advertising and propaganda, baloney and
> garbage, are the child of Science too.
>
> For a metaphysics that is suppose to be grounded in Radical Empiricism and
> Pragmaticism, how is one suppose to act on information created by Science
> when it cannot be experienced and is profit-driven? Trust? Is this an
> unimportant question? Maybe this should be answered by those who want to
> say that Scientific patterns are more than just conceptual
constructs. What
> does Science know, and how does it know it?
>
The scientific method is sound - if science has a bad side it is through its
misuse by the people who do that science.
Science uses many methods having the similar problem of 'affirming
the antecedent'. I know, I've heard all that rigamarole about
simplicity, elegance and beauty, but that's just a human value, a
conventional prejudice. The better answer may be complicated and
messy, or seem complicated and mess because of our lack of better
understanding.
Science did not invent gravity - but science makes gravity more useful since
we understand better how it behaves
Which gravity, Newton's or Einstein's? Gravity, in either case, is
just a useful conceptual construct, abstract patterns of
value. There is no such independent thing. If you think it is
something else, please explain what it is.
Marsha
.
_____________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
