Hi David,


On Aug 20, 2012, at 10:37 AM, David Harding wrote:

>>>> David's wrongly presents a statement by Marsha:
>>>> On Aug 20, 2012, at 9:06 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> "You're welcome to value truth, but it's not something I'm interested in".
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha asked:
>> I would like to know which post that quote came from?  I cannot find it to 
>> read the context???  

---


> David:
> My apologies,
> 
> I neglected to mention but it was a paraphrase of these two quotes:

> "The word 'truth' does not interest me." (18th August)
From:
On Aug 16, 2012, at 4:24 AM, MarshaV wrote:
"The word 'truth' does not interest me.  I like the idea of 'patterns' so much 
more. "


> "You might like to classify patterns as truths, but I do not. " (17th August)
From:
On Aug 16, 2012, at 9:12 PM, MarshaV wrote:  
The idea of 'truth' is an intellectual pattern. You might like to classify 
patterns as truths, but I do not.  Maybe 'conventional (relative) truth' or 
'provincial truth', but not 'truth'.  I do like 'hypothetical'.  Even my little 
dog Bebe I consider hypothetical.    

---

Marsha now:
Double quotes usually indicate a direct quote, not paraphrasing.  Such a 
confusion demonstrates  poor scholarship.  Such mistaken paraphrasing, 
including a combining of two statements from two different posts, can cause 
great mischief and misunderstanding.  



>> Marsha from a different post:
>> I would say that I value the MoQ where the fundamental principle is the idea 
>> that the world is nothing but value(Dynamic/static); there is nothing 
>> additional called 'truth'.   
> 
> David now:
> As if 'truth' is additional to value? This is the crux of your 
> misunderstanding.  Truth can be value and truth is value.  Truth, just as 
> everything else, is a part of value.  Truth is one of the better things to 
> value in fact.  

Marsha now:
The word 'truth' represents an intellectual static pattern of value.  There is 
no misunderstanding; I PREFER to use 'hypothetical' rather than 'truth'.  I 
have explained my reasoning.


> David:
> I think, as your statement shows, that you still see 'truth' as it is 
> portrayed before Phaedrus put quality before it in ZMM.  


Marsha now:
No, I do not see 'truth' as it is portrayed before Phaedus put Quality first.  
Quality comes first!  I have left that good/true conflict behind.   It's quite 
simple:  I prefer to think of objects of knowledge (static patterns) as 
hypothetical.

Rather than use the concept/word 'truth', I prefer to think of objects of 
knowledge as hypothetical.  Once one accepts the MoQ's fundamental principal 
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 necessarily 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 promotes an attitude of 
fearless curiosity: gumption.  It moves one away from thinking of entities as 
existing inherently and existing independent of consciousness.  


> David:
> That is, in opposition to quality.  You are fighting a 'truth' which has been 
> defeated long ago.  Quality first, then truth.  There's nothing wrong with 
> truth.  In fact, it's very good.

Marsha now:
I have stated no opposition to Quality.  It is you who seems to be clinging to 
that old struggle.  As I said:  I value the MoQ where the fundamental principle 
is the idea that the world is nothing but Value(Dynamic/static); there is 
nothing additional called 'truth'; the word 'truth' represents an intellectual 
static pattern of value.   Btw, using the word 'hypothetical' does not prevent 
the understanding that static patterns of value are related to usefulness, and 
it does not prevent judging some static patterns of value are better than 
others.   

You seem very confused.  


Thank you.  

Marsha  


p.s.  My statement was/is "the fundamental nature of static quality is Dynamic 
Quality".  Are you going to wrongly paraphrase and misrepresent this statement 
too?  
 
 
 




___


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

Reply via email to