Hi David, You wrote to dmb: "What Marsha does value is quote sharing and either her interpretation or those who have a similar view. If you would like to point out how her interpretation might be wrong or of low quality or how there might be a better way to see things, then that isn't something she's interested in."
Marsha: This is a pathetic form of bullying. On Aug 21, 2012, at 12:45 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > HI Marsha, > >> 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. > > Right and I apologised for not mentioning I was paraphrasing. I ended our last discussion when you took my comment about 'artificially isolating process' and paraphrased it as 'artificial patterns'. I don't find that style of paraphrasing conducive to a productive discussion. I have explained my position clearly. I prefer to call objects of knowledge 'static patterns of value' or 'patterns' and prefer to see them as hypothetical as I have explained. I find 'hypothetical' a high value pattern and ascetically beautiful, and it does match my experience that situations change and there is always more to consider. I find 'truth' and your insistence that I use it too dogmatic, and I do not like being forced to play an either/or game. The MoQ accommodates multiple intellectual realities and doesn't insist on yours being the only one. Thank you for the time you have given thus far to the 'It's all analogy. Does this change anything?' thread, but I do not want to continue into a debate over 'truth' versus 'hypothetical'. Marsha >> 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. > > I get the preference. A preference is a value. So hopefully we can continue > to talk about which way of seeing things is better. To help us continue - I > provide more reasons for preferring to not diminish the importance of the > term truth below.. > >>> 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. > > Right I get that Marsha. I get that you prefer to think of knowledge as > hypothetical. I get that you prefer(value) seeing knowledge as only > hypothetical. But as I keep saying - by valuing knowledge as hypothetical > you are neglecting the value of truth. By your own definition hypothetical > is "supposed but not necessarily real or true". But why insist on devaluing > truth and reality in this way? Why claim that hypothetical is more valuable? > Why claim that something 'supposed' is better than something 'actual'? Here > is a Pirsig quote on truth: > > "In the MOQ, and in William James’ pragmatism, truth is described as high > quality intellectual patterns." - LC > > I think that there are actually high quality intellectual patterns. There > are patterns which *actually* describe reality beautifully. There are not > just 'supposedly' high quality patterns. There are actually high quality > patterns. > > To put it another way - yes I suppose some patterns describe reality > beautifully. The supposition is the act of trying them out. Just as I'm > 'supposing' your truths right now. But then, I still make the conclusion > that that there are *actually* better truths. > >> 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. > > And I prefer to not diminish the importance of the concept/word 'truth' as it > allows us to say that something is actually better than something else. The > only way you can know if something exists or not is by experiencing it. Once > you have experienced it, you can say that it actually exists. > > Is the sky blue or is the sky green? > > I can suppose either but I won't know until I have experienced the sky. Once > I have experienced the sky I will know that it is valuable(on some days) to > say that it is blue. There is value in saying that something actually > exists. It means that you have tested it against experience and seen that > the truth matches your experience. If you do not make such a distinction > between actual and supposed truth you cannot really say whether anything > actually exists. > >>> 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. > > I've already said that I do not see truth as 'additional' to the > static/Dynamic split of the MOQ. Truth is a subset of static quality. They > are ideas which describe reality beautifully. In other words - actual high > quality intellectual patterns(not supposedly true). > >> 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. > > Okay good. So now we start to talk about which is better then. Is it better > to say that actual truth exists, than to diminish its importance by > preferring supposed truth. > >> You seem very confused. > > Hopefully I have dispelled at least part of the confusion in this post. And > hopefully you will suppose and then respond to each of my reasons. > >> 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? > > Not at all. > > Thanks Marsha, > > -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
