Hi Mark, If you could imagine yourself capable of fixing one broken thing, or creating one thing that doesn’t yet exist, what would it be? Marsha
On Aug 19, 2012, at 10:40 AM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Marsha, > As a scientist my work is asking questions. The trick is to ask a good > question. As knowledge becomes readily available on the net, education will > switch to teaching how to ask good questions, rather than accumulating > knowledge. > > In truth every static representation is an answer to a question, such as > "what is that?". I prefer to think of SQ as the creation of an answer, > rather than a hypothetical, but it is probably the same thing. > > We bring the static into existence. That is the wonderful power that we > have. By this viewpoint, SQ does not control us, we wield it! We are > magicians at play. With this power we operate from the realm of DQ. > > MOQ provides instruction on how this works. It is a method of alchemy where > we transform DQ into SQ. So long as we understand this ability, we are not > victims of SQ. The mystical is the starting point for each of our creations. > This starting point lies in The Good. Such are the teachings of MOQ. > > > Mark > > On Aug 18, 2012, at 4:05 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Greetings Mark, >> >> You have reminded me of a quote by Niels Bohr: "Every sentence I utter must >> be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question." >> >> Another reason that I like thinking of static (patterned) value as >> hypothetical (supposed but not neccesarily real or true) is that it promotes >> an attitude of fearless curiosity: gumption; and it is 'useful' to hold this >> view because it is less likely to conspire towards the stagnation and >> ossification of creative, dynamic thinking. >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 18, 2012, at 11:06 AM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Perhaps there is another manner of looking at truth. In this view truth is >>> not an objective construct, but rather a place one views from. Truth can >>> be considered as an operational mode of being. >>> >>> When we express ourselves from the region of truth it is very different >>> from when we construe a reality from the area of deceit. One could say >>> that "it is good to question" is a true statement. Or, another true >>> statement is that "existence stems from Value". This form of truth becomes >>> the basis from which one operates. >>> >>> Once one begins with such a truth, the manner of subsequent interpretation >>> falls within the viewpoint of this manner of truth. >>> >>> The point would be to dismiss truth as an objective result, and consider it >>> as a pair of glasses. For example, the truth that "truth is useful" is not >>> a conclusion, but instead it is a starting point. This makes such truth a >>> premise for further interpretation. When it becomes such, it is no longer >>> considered objectively and can indeed be forgotten since such truth was >>> simply a raft to get to a new place. >>> >>> All this would imply is that truth is neither objective or subjective. It >>> is a manner of being. When we operate from the stratosphere of truth, >>> things fit together, until they don't; another truth... >>> >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> On Aug 18, 2012, at 12:52 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello David, >>>> >>>> The word 'truth' does not interest me. 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> Marsha >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Aug 18, 2012, at 3:48 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello Marsha, >>>>> >>>>>> "Unlike subject-object metaphysics the Metaphysics of Quality does not >>>>>> insist on a single exclusive truth. If subjects and objects are held to >>>>>> be the ultimate reality then we're permitted only one construction of >>>>>> things - that which corresponds to the 'objective' world - and all other >>>>>> constructions are unreal. But if Quality or excellence is seen as the >>>>>> ultimate reality then it becomes possible for more than one set of >>>>>> truths to exist. Then one doesn't seek the absolute Truth.' One seeks >>>>>> instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of things with the >>>>>> knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future this explanation >>>>>> must be taken provisionally; as useful until something better comes >>>>>> along. One can then examine intellectual realities the same way one >>>>>> examines paintings in an art gallery, not with an effort to find out >>>>>> which one is the 'real' painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those >>>>>> that are of value. There are many sets of intellectual reality in >>>>>> existenc > e >> >>> a >>>> n >>>>> d we can perceive some to have more quality than others, but that we do >>>>> so is, in part, the result of our history and current patterns of values." >>>>>> (LILA) >>>>>> >>>>>> And why I consider your opinions, as well as mine, hypothetical >>>>>> (supposed but not neccesarily real or true.) >>>>> >>>>> You are still using the word 'truth' as if it refers to some fixed ideal. >>>>> Yes you are recognising the insufficiency of such a viewpoint - but when >>>>> you shy away from using the term 'truth' you still seem to be under the >>>>> impression that all it could ever refer to is a 'single exclusivity'. >>>>> But as the quote you provide explains - truths are not to be taken as >>>>> some fixed ideal but they are to be taken as *useful* until something >>>>> better comes along. >>>>> >>>>> The key word here as I have highlighted is *useful*. Is it *useful* to >>>>> tell the victims families of the Hiroshima bombings that the bombs which >>>>> killed their loved ones were 'hypothetical'? No, in fact it is very >>>>> un-empathetic and not useful. Is it *useful* to say that the only way >>>>> truth can be interpreted is as a single exclusivity? As the quote >>>>> explains - no it is not useful and so it is not true! So please stop >>>>> shying away from the word truth and using 'hypothetical' instead as if >>>>> truth has only one meaning. Truth is provisional and taken as useful >>>>> until something better comes along! That is quite different than >>>>> hypothetical. If you cannot see that then please look at a dictionary. >>>>> >>>>> -David. >> >> 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 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
