Hello David,
On Aug 13, 2012, at 10:27 PM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Marsha, > >>> Okay so you are here because the MOQ interests you. I am too. Now >>> what? Are we here to exchange quotes from various 'philosophers'? Are >>> we here to think inwardly about how the MOQ applies to our own own >>> lives? >> >> I think it is important that we do. That we can be forced to explain on >> demand goes too far. > > Why does being forced to explain go too far? I think it's intellectually very > valuable that people are forced to explain their ideas and give reasons for > those ideas. Traditionally this is the power of the dialectic method in > determining truth. Truth is very valuable in philosophy wouldn't you agree? In philosophy there are as many of 'truths', on any given topic, as there are stars in the sky. Personally, I find 'truth' in the same category as 'absolute'. It has very little significance, unless it is qualified by the word 'conventional' or 'provisional'. Truths in philosophy can be quite interesting, though. There is only one 'truth' I might find valid and that is the idea that the world is nothing but Value. >>> Are we here to determine the best interpretation of the MOQ on here? >> >> We are here to do our best. I don't know where the effort put into these >> discussions will lead, nor do I think the idea that the world is nothing but >> value is confined to the the MD. > > What does 'our best' entail on MD? What does our best entail generally? What > is good Marsha? > >>> I mean, how much introspection do you think we should do when we >>> come on here? >> >> I am an off-the-scale introvert, AND I find value in other people's ideas. > > Okay that's good. > >>> >>> How is it psychological as opposed to philosophical? Low value can be >>> anything and it isn't always related to states of the brain.. >> >> Explain why you think psychology would reduce to brain states? That seems >> like an interesting statement. There is, it seems to me, the brain, sense >> organs and nervous system, and that is just the beginning. > > Yes - you're right, my mistake. Psychology is defined as the "The science of > mind *and* behaviour." > >> Within a metaphysics where value is primary (before self and objects), it >> should be enough to make the statement that the concept lacks value. Do I >> (self) really have access to 'the reasons' that come before the self? >> Wouldn't forcing a reason be like explaining the number of dancing angels on >> the head of a pin? Or closing the door after the horses had escaped? >> >> I grant, though, that it might be a concept of great value to others. > > Yes Marsha. You're right. It is like closing the door after the horses had > escaped. Maybe not the number of dancing angels on the head of a pin as that > would be an illusion but certainly the intellect is like closing the door > after the horses had escaped. That's exactly right and I'm glad you said > it. That's all the intellect and truths are. Truths are always after the > fact. And just as your analogy shows, it's always too late. It never gets > it right, so why do we try? > > We try, well I do anyway - because the value of truth is entirely different > to that ultimately undefinable source of all things.. While, whenever we try > and determine the 'truth' of something, we are committing an act of > degeneracy, we cannot help but do so. It's unavoidable. The human mind is > built to determine truths. There is a quality to truth which I guess I > cannot really impart to you unless you experience it for yourself, but a good > truth is a very beautiful and powerful thing. The MOQ is one such beautiful > truth, and if you are here and have said that you see value in it then you > probably see beauty in its truth as well. A good truth explains reality > beautifully. A good truth, for example, can explain your experience back to > you in a way which brings a certain harmony. If you experience something of > low value for instance, then a good truth can explain to you exactly why that > thing is of low value. This is why I am here. To find quality intellectual > ideas and truths which can explain reality beautifully. The Ultimate Truth, which might be what interests me, is best approached by discovering what is false; not this, not that; or so this is how I have come to understand and experience it. I prefer to think of objects of knowledge as hypothetical. Once one accepts the MoQ's fundamental truth that the world is nothing but Value, then 'expanded rationality' occurs when an individual transforms the natural tendency to reify self and world into the natural tendency to hold all static patterns of value to be hypothetical (supposed but not neccesarily real or true.) Understanding static (patterned) value as hypothetical acknowledges the incompleteness of what we know and makes room for additional inquiry with new possibilities. It certainly moves away from thinking of entities as existing inherently, and independent of thinking. >>>> Sorry, but another guy, George, could have been a 'bad' man. I think RMP >>>> is pointing to the _evaluation_ being the center of life; in John's case >>>> that was 'good'. The evaluation (good) is recognized as more significant >>>> than the object (man). >>> >>> I disagree. I think the point is the good is *before* the subjective >>> evaluation as to what is good. Quality is before the object *and* the >>> subject. Quality is even before European and Native American culture >>> as well. >> >> So you think there is _good_ before there is a subjective evaluation of good >> or bad? It seems an awkward statement, but if you mean that first _good_ as >> a synonym for value, then I agree. > > Yeah good, valuable, moral, right - they're all the same thing to me… Maybe a serial killer would agree with you. > Thanks Marsha, > > -David. Thank you, Marsha 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
