Greetings David,
On Aug 24, 2012, at 5:15 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? As long as caring does not translate to adopting, I care. I WILL change my mind if it seems appropriate. I've already proven that I am capable of changing my mind when I realized that all knowing bifurcates into knower (self) and object of knowledge. >> 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? There is no good or bad implied by either statement. >> 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 nuance 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 care that you have ideas. I think RMP use of 'pattern' was brilliant, and see no reason to overlay 'patterns' with the concept of 'truth'. > 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? RMP did not coin the phrase 'static truths of value'; he chose the phrase 'static patterns of value'. Maybe you should consider 'pragmatic patterns' as a link between RMP and James. >> 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. I am happy with the concept of pattern, overjoyed! Using 'pattern' seemed the perfect choice. > But once we have tested them… Now what? No conclusions? No saying … "In this > scenario - this is the best and highest quality intellectual pattern?" Sure ask these questions, but they do not require the concept of truth, which as I posted to Ron has a long and deep history with 'certainty'. > 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. A few things here, there is a difference between the word 'hypothesis' and the word 'hypothetical'. I did mention that I not want to get into a bait and switch game using the subtle differences in language. And speaking of word games, you've neglected to include the precise definition of 'true' and 'truth' being presented. - Nor am I interested in discussing whether Fido's dog dish has vanished when I leave the room. - My conclusions, when I make them, can remain hypothetical, and nothing would be lost accept possible the intellectual arrogance of certainty. - I prefer 'conventional existence' to 'true existence'. Patterns conventionally exist. >> 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. And as I have described elsewhere, I think it best to recognize objects of knowledge as 'patterns', static patterns of value. I really like the word 'patterns'. And I like considering patterns as hypothetical. > sq is all that we have… Sq is all that we are.. Okay. > This is why there are bad mystics and good mystics. Are you a mystic's mystic to make such a judgement call? > A bad mystic will pretend that the sq which they create doesn't exist and > that they have DQ. This statement makes no sense to me. None. > Thank for you caring and trying to understand my ideas. Caring about your ideas has not invoked me to change mine. > -David Thank you. Marsha 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
