Hi Marsha, One thing? I would fix the Ring Cycle. Every moment is a creation.
Mark On Aug 20, 2012, at 2:53 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 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
