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.
What type of knowing " bifurcates into knower (self) and object of knowledge"? The knowing which comes from experience or the intellectual knowing which attempts to explain that experience? Regardless of which type it is, knowing does not " bifurcate into knower (self) and object of knowledge. " This is the problem with SOM. A subject and an object always has to be identified. The MOQ starts with experience, not with knowing or some kind of knowing which breaks into a subject and object. If this is your example of how you can change your mind then it is very curious because it seems to indicate that you have not changed your mind at all about basic the metaphysical foundations. >>> 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'm sure that it is not implied, but regardless of your intentions, a certain quality is created by your statement. Everything is quality. Good is a noun. Just by you existing in and reading these words of mine right now you are creating values. Values about the fact, for instance, that it is good to read things on MD. So, there is also a 'quality' that you unintentionally are creating from your statement above. It is one of bad mysticism - yes you are aiming for mysticism but the result is bad mysticism. Full of intellectual contradiction and a lack of awareness that by saying something, you are making a value judgement. A good mystic would recognise when they make a value judgement, or indeed when they say anything, they are ruining the undefined source of all things. This is why words can only ever point to this undefined source of all things and not *be* the undefined source of all things. You can pretend as much as you like that your words are 'hypothetical' or that your words are an 'analogy' or that they are 'transparent', but that's all it is. It's your imagination. Your words cannot, do not, and never will capture Dynamic Quality. They are something which is not Dynamic Quality - static quality. By their very nature they are fixed and do not change unless altered by that undefined source of all things. So please stop practicing bad mysticism which creates meaningless static quality and does not point to the source of all things because it gets mixed up with static quality. The less clear you draw the line between Dynamic Quality and static quality you will never be able to point to either. By claiming that patterns are best understood as hypothetical or transparent you are blurring this distinction and thus not able to point to either. >>> 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. There is a difference between caring that someone *has* ideas and caring *for* those ideas. > I think RMP use of 'pattern' was brilliant, and see no reason to overlay > 'patterns' with the concept of 'truth'. Overlay? Being that they came afterwards, if anything, intellectual patterns of value are being 'overlaid' on truth. Everyone knows what truth is. It is very useful for communicating and creating amazing things. >> 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. I'm not sure I understand what you're arguing here. Can you explain some more? >>> 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. I can't disagree here.. >> 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'. Regardless of whether a word has a 'history' with some other unnecessary concept or not - this ought not invalidate the use of that word. The word and the values it represents are still just as valuable, regardless of whether its value has been historically misunderstood. >> 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. Then why mention the subtle difference? The difference is one of fields. A scientific hypothesis is an artistic hypothetical.. > 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. - I keep telling you Marsha… that truth is "an idea which represents experience beautifully". I don't understand why you don't accept this definition? > 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. You insist on seeing truth as if it is forever tarnished with the concepts of certainty and absolute. Pirsig destroyed this idea of truth in ZMM. He points out, beautifully, how truth has become something which is 'certain' and 'absolute'. Then in ZMM., Pirsig shows how it is better to place quality first, then truth. With this change in perspective - truth is no longer 'certain' or 'absolute' but how good something is at describing experience. However, it seems you insist on wanting to throw out the baby with the bath water. There is nothing wrong with truth! The problem has always been where it is placed within a metaphysical system. >>> 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. I think 'patterns' describes experience well as well. That is how our minds work. They detect and create patterns. Each pattern has its own quality or beauty of its own as well. I also like considering hypothetical patterns as well. Patterns themselves are not hypothetical however. I have once concluded from considering them as hypothetical, that patterns actually exist. Patterns describe experience so beautifully well that I consider them to exist as real as any rock or animal or plant. >> This is why there are bad mystics and good mystics. > > Are you a mystic's mystic to make such a judgement call? No. Mystics, as I stated from the beginning, do not like value judgements such as 'good' and 'bad'. This is where the MOQ differs from mysticism. Good is a noun. The MOQ recognises that we cannot help but make a value judgment, so we ought to make our values as best we can. Included in making our values as best we can is claiming what both is and is not good mysticism. >> 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. Right. And so I will continue to speak until one day it will... >> Thank for you caring and trying to understand my ideas. > > Caring about your ideas has not invoked me to change mine. So that's it? You won't care for my ideas anymore? I constantly try and understand your ideas and respond to them with thought and care. Please give me the same courtesy... Or not. 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
