Below, I am changing the word 'thinking' to 'consciousness'; please adjust accordingly.
On Aug 14, 2012, at 3:18 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 consciousness. > > >>>>> 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 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
