Greetings David,
On Aug 15, 2012, at 10:53 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. > > So you do not find the truths of philosophy 'valid'? Why is it so important, > heaven forbid, that the word truth is qualified by the words conventional or > provisional? Well, it certainly is not in the words 'conventional' and 'provisional'; it's the realization that our experiencing is co-dependent (relative), impermanent and ever-changing - fleeting. >>> 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. > > So other truths apart from the 'Ultimate Truth' does not interest you? The word 'truth' does not interest me. I like the idea of 'patterns' so much more. >> 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. > > So if I were to take your viewpoint. And take that objects of knowledge and > static patterns are as you say - 'hypothetical'. Would it help the victims > families of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima to tell them not to worry, the > bombs were only 'hypothetical'? No, it wouldn't help the victims of the bombs dropped by the U.S.A. onto Japan. > Would it help the families of any tragedy, be it those of a car accident, to > tell them "not to worry - the car which hit your loved one was only > 'hypothetical'". No, it wouldn't help the families of the victim of a tragedy. > That makes me sick to the stomach. What shrewd, uncaring, new age mumbo > jumbo. Your being "sick" and name calling doesn't help much either; it may be just adding more pollution. I find holding patterns as hypothetical may be a good way to honor all life as continuous. > There are facts of life Marsha. And no, they're not hypothetical. One of > those facts of life, is that you and I and everyone on this planet is going > to die. This isn't some joke. It's very sad and something very real when > someone's time comes before it should. This is why there is more to life > than just your 'Ultimate Truth'. There are important things and truths in > life which people are concerned with which aren't the 'Ultimate Truth'. A > way of determining those truths is by dialectically questioning someone, and > forcing them to explain - on demand. There is value/experience; understanding that is more useful than some cliche. And I do not dictate what everyone else should be doing or thinking. There are times in our lives when family and community may be more important, but I think compassion is a gift of the Ultimate Truth, even we only experience it as fleeting. >>>>>> 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. > > I hardly see how what I wrote would be something a serial killer would say. > If you could explain yourself with some reasoning so that I can > intellectually understand where you are coming from then maybe I can respond > in more detail so that we can get to the truth of the matter. I am not sure there is a rational way to present an explanation. Think back to your presenting a family tragedy and the bombing of Hiroshima. On what level can they be "good, valuable, moral, right"? Such a paradox was why Phædrus left the University in India, was it not? It is a most difficult challenge to understanding, and I believe the path to opening one's heart. I did try to bring up the Buddhist conception of the Two-Truths, but those too are just words. And I only make others angry if I say the fundamental nature of static quality is Dynamic Quality. It sounds insane to say it is suffering and, at the same time, it is good, valuable, moral and right. But that's the way it is, or seems to be to me. 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
