Hi Marsha, I reply because I care. I take your ideas on and consider them each with care. This appears to be more than you do to my ideas. Why are you here Marsha? To frustrate others with your lack of care for their ideas?
> 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. Is 'transparent' a good or bad thing? In the latter sentence you seem to imply that if something is transparent then it is insignificant, of low quality and not worth valuing. In your former sentence you seem to imply that transparency is a good thing. Which is it? > 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. I have repeatedly told you how I see the word 'truth'. This is what I mean by caring. Please start to care about my ideas. Why are you here if you don't care about the ideas of other people here? I'll repeat again. I see truth as an idea which represents experience beautifully . Or as Pirsig puts it - truth is high quality intellectual patterns. If you do not care for nuance, does that mean you really care? > 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. You're right. Holding patterns as hypothetical does not preclude testing. In fact, holding them as hypothetical allows for testing. It is the fact that we come up with hypothesis that allows us to test patterns. But once we have tested them… Now what? No conclusions? No saying … "In this scenario - this is the best and highest quality intellectual pattern?" In fact, if you like hypothesis so much. Let's try one.. Let's say we can get a ray gun and test the colour of the sky. One hypothesis says it is blue, the other green. I test the hypothesis that it is green with the ray gun. It beeps twice indicating it doesn't detect any green. I test the hypothesis that it is blue with the ray gun. It beeps once indicating it does detect blue... Now, based on that experience, what is better to say? That the sky is blue or green? If we treat them both still as hypothesis then we haven't drawn any conclusions about the truth of the matter. Who's to say whether it's true? We have two "supposed but not necessarily real or true" hypothesis. If you don't make conclusions as to the truth of something then you cannot live your life. We all make these sorts of conclusions as to what is a good way of seeing things, whether we recognise it or not. It appears you want to pretend that you do not make these conclusions. I think this is actually what is stopping you from even confronting your own opinions or those of others as you do not want to recognise their true existence. > 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. And as I have described above - There is value in thinking about knowledge hypothetically. But it has nothing to do with the fact that what we know is according to you… 'incomplete'. As if what we know is ever going to be complete! I acknowledge that what we know is not ever going to be complete. I acknowledge that what sq is never going to capture DQ. Yet I still see value in 'actual' truth. Not just hypothetical. sq is all that we have… Sq is all that we are.. This is why there are bad mystics and good mystics. A bad mystic will pretend that the sq which they create doesn't exist and that they have DQ. Thank for you caring and trying to understand my ideas. -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
