Hi Marsha, You are trying to deny that you make a true value judgement. That to me, indicates you are trying to deny that you make a value judgment on the intellectual level. All good intellectual value judgements are true. What you are claiming - is bad mysticism. You are claiming allegiance to pure mysticism, denying that intellectual 'truth' exists. "Do not mistake me for words" you say. This is mysticism. And it is bad mysticism when you come onto a philosophical discussion board and de-emphasise the importance of truth. Truth such as the value in calling yourself a mystic. A philosophical discussion board is by its very nature going to ruin the ultimately undefined nature of the universe. All your words are value judgements doing this.
> David, > > "Don’t keep searching for truth. Just let go of your opinions." > (Seng Ts'an) > > Here they come; there they go... I agree. This is valuable. These words speak to the value of DQ. Philosophy, by definition, ruins the ultimately undefined nature of reality. A philosophical discussion board is, by definition, going to ruin this undefined nature of reality with fixed intellectual meanings. If you deny this then all you are doing is being a mystic of the type which is opposed to the MOQ: "The only person who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world with fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born — and to whose birth no thought has been given. The rest of us have to settle for being something less pure. Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing metaphysics is a part of life." > You are projecting, David. > > You would construct me from words and call it "true"? David, do not mistake > me for words. You would construct me as a caring person or non-caring > person based on my agreement with your particular opinion? No, no, no... > It is better to consider knowledge as patterns, and to consider patterns as > hypothetical. It is better to _consciously_ acknowledge that our > interpretations, opinions, valuations, practices and traditions are possibly > incorrect, incomplete and subject to change. This is where you try and skirt around *fixed metaphysical meanings* by claiming that your thoughts are best seen as something 'subject to change'. You can pretend all you like but all of your thoughts above are fixed on this site, forever. To deny as much is the degeneracy of purity. That is my main claim against you. You seek to capture the 'purity' of DQ by claiming that your thoughts do not truthfully exist. It's degenerate, relativistic and anti-intellectual. > Value is an experience. It is not a judgment about an experience. It is not > a description of experience. The value itself is an experience. That is true of all values *except* intellectual value. Intellectual value *is by definition*, a judgment about an experience. > One can hold a pattern to be very high value and reliable, but still hold it > as a hypothetical (supposed but not _necessarily_ real or true). And I don't > think it would be anti-philosophical to do so. I wouldn't call it anti-philosophical either. What I *would* call anti-philosophical is de-emphasising the importance of truth in philosophy. Such a standpoint couldn't be any more of a slap in the face to philosophy. If you de-emphasise the value of truth then you de-emphasise the value of high quality intellectual patterns because they are the same thing. You are always trying to practice this pure mysticism of yours and to claim DQ as your own. You want to de-emphasise how the intellect ruins the undefined nature of the universe with its fixed metaphysical meanings by claiming that all your words are 'subject to change'. What you fail to see is that claiming such is a degeneracy of another sort - purity. -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
