Hi Marsha, I am glad you find freedom in uncertainty. "Holding patterns as hypothetical" AS hypothetical, suggests that you can move away from that form of understanding. The way to move away would be to NOT hold patterns as hypothetical. However, there is an alternative as presented in my second paragraph. At the root of your statement is the indication that a degree of uncertainty is necessary to progress. However, even uncertainty would become hypothetical bringing in the possibility of certainty. While this idea may seem like a paradox (which it is), it can be very revealing upon contemplation.
By questioning the very basis of your knowledge, you imply that there is the "non-hypothetical". This would follow since "the hypothetical" suggests that there is the "non-hypothetical" (in order for the terms "hypothetical" to mean something). Where you then find yourself is interesting and can become a basis for an appreciation of existence. By your technique, one can turn away from the idea of coming in contact with such "non-hypothetical", and turn instead to the "creative notion" of existence. This would entail surmising that there is no "non-hypothetical" and instead the appreciation of existence as creative. When we create a painting, it replaces the "nothing" that was once there. The same can be said for each moment of existence. Quality "seeps through" in every instant resulting in an entirely "new thing" at each moment. Pondering on existence in this fashion can also bring about great freedom. It also places a degree of personal responsibility on what one creates at every moment. Since most of one's existence is without forethought, one then can "realize" that one is"tapping into" a much deeper region of one's ability. This region can be denoted as DQ. That we "realize things does not mean that we come in contact with something that we have found, but that we have created it. This would bring in the idealist notion of "the world as idea". Hope this makes sense, but probably not. At least I tried. Cheers, Mark On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:23 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 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
