Hi David, I have previously stated that understanding that 'all is analogy' makes patterns (in my experience) somewhat transparent, some more transparent than others. I find the concept of 'absolute' and 'truth' quite transparent, and insignificant. I find the idea of holding patterns as 'hypothetical' far more dynamic and liberating than 'actual' and 'truth', and more conducive to creating better patterns. Btw, do you have a MoQ definition of 'truth' & 'true' or would your plan be to use ALL of the entries in the dictionary (which are analogy upon analogy) and throw some of your chosen RMP quotes to stand for an explicit explanation. No, that is a language game of nuiance I do not care to play.
Holding patterns as hypothetical does not preclude testing, it just prevents a pattern falling into total stagnation by leaving it open to further testing, possibilities and change towards betterment. I prefer to think of objects of knowledge as hypothetical. By using 'hypothetical' I think there is less of a tendency toward intellectual arrogance. 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 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 promotes an attitude of fearless curiosity: gumption. It moves one away from thinking of entities as existing inherently and independent of consciousness. Thank you, Marsha On Aug 21, 2012, at 5:12 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Marsha, > >> 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'. > > > My interpretation is not the only one. Yours, just as everything, has value. > This is my point. I am not here to determine the absolute 'true' opinion. I > chat with people on here so I can understand their viewpoint and see the > value in what they are saying. If what they are saying is better than how I > see things, then that's awesome because it means by understanding I have > become a better person. If what they are saying is not better, or if what > they are saying confuses me, I will say so, so that I can learn and talk it > through and thus we can become better people.. > > I'm not interested in a 'truth' verses 'hypothetical' debate. You will > remember however that it was your quote which you have posted on MD probably > 100 times that de-emphasised the importance of truth and put these two things > in opposition... > > "Rather than use the concept/word 'truth', I prefer to think of objects of > knowledge as hypothetical." > > That fascinates me because I see the value in both of these things. I > thought I made that clear in my last post where I wrote: > > "To put it another way - yes I suppose (create a hypothetical that) some > patterns describe reality beautifully. The supposition(hypothetical) 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. " > > There is value in both hypothetical and actual truth. At the emphasis of > one, you're neglecting the other. Both are important… > > In other words, yes it's good to see objects of knowledge as hypothetical. > But then eventually you need to test those hypotheticals against reality and > create some high quality intellectual patterns(true) conclusions about > reality as a result. > > 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 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
