Hello David,
On Aug 25, 2012, at 10:23 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. > > 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? Such a close-ended, either/or question. My answer is the type of knowing that bifurcates is the type that knows something. > Regardless of which type it is, knowing does not " bifurcate into knower > (self) and object of knowledge. " This is the problem with SOM. I see this as a function of a relationship with consciousness. > A subject and an object always has to be identified. Valued by consciousness? > The MOQ starts with experience, not with knowing or some kind of knowing > which breaks into a subject and object. Yes, Value comes first! > 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 nothing to say about what it seems like to you. >>>> 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. Thus speaks David Harding! Hahaha... I don't take you as someone to lecture on mysticism, or advise me on how I should interpret experience. I don't even see that most of this paragraph, on mysticism in particular, is pertinent to any statement I've made, nor the discussion in general. But as far as analogy goes, let me offer: "Fantastic, Phædrus thinks, that he should have remembered that. It just demolishes the whole dialectical position. That may just be the whole show right there. Of course it's an analogy. Everything is an analogy. But the dialectician don't know that." (ZAMM, Ch. 30) Wake up! And please stop thinking that your imaginings on how to judge a mystic matter to me. > 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 care that you have thoughts. >>>> 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. Okay. >> 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. Philosophy/philosophers have not come to any consensus about truth. And you do not have the knowledge that can state what "everybody knows". Do you mean everyone in the past, and everyone in the present and everyone in the future? How could you know that? - I think you have some confusion about the intellectual static pattern named 'truth'; it's a pattern. At an accident you might find as many different and opposing eyewitness reports as there are witnesses? Do all witnesses decide that there version is the truth based on it being "an idea which represents experience beautifully"? Perhaps Heinrich Himmler thought the truth of his ideas were based on how well they represented his experience beautifully? I'll stick to considering static patterns of value as hypothetical. >>> 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? If RMP wanted to make truth primary, he would have written a MoT, but he didn't. I very much like RMP's choice in describing static quality as patterns - static patterns of value. >>>> 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. Again, I did not state that 'truth' was wrong, bad or didn't exist. I stated that I value more highly using the word 'pattern' rather then 'truth'; and I prefer to think of patterns as 'hypothetical'. I do not insist, nor even suggest, that you should adopt my position. >>> 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.. So you want to play word games? No thanks. >> 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? And I think hypothetical (supposed but not neccesarily real or true) is an idea which represents experience beautifully. I prefer to think of objects of knowledge (patterns) as hypothetical. 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.) By using 'hypothetical' I think there is less of a tendency toward intellectual arrogance. 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 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
