On Sep 9, 2012, at 1:29 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Marsha,
>
>> "There are many sets of intellectual reality in existence and we can
>> perceive some to have more quality than others, but that we do so is, in
>> part, the result of our history and current patterns of values."
>> (RMP, 'LILA', chapter 8)
>>
>> Intriguing? High value intellectual patterns may be judged elegant without
>> ever needing to assign the term 'truth'. Please keep in mind that the MoQ
>> allows for more than your intellectual reality.
>
> Of course it does! Your ideas are just as real as anyone else's. What it's
> all about is how good these intellectual truths are.
What it is all about is how good these intellectual patterns are.
> As does Robert Pirsig, I think it's good to think of truth as 'high quality
> intellectual patterns'.
> I am here to talk with you about ideas. That's why we're here no? To discuss
> which intellectual patterns are the best? I'm explaining to you why I think
> it is good to see truth as 'high quality intellectual patterns'.
I have read and considered your explanations and continue think it better to
consider objects of knowledge (stuff in the encyclopedia) _patterns_ rather
than truths. And I find it of higher value (more useful) to consider patterns
as hypothetical for the reasons previously offered.
> You are constantly explaining your alternative to me..
Yes, because I find it a high value explanation.
>
>> I find it more useful to consider objects of knowledge (stuff in the
>> encyclopedia) _patterns_ rather than truths. And I find it of higher value
>> (more useful) to consider patterns as hypothetical for reasons that 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 necessarily
>> 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 existing independent of consciousness.
>
> Why does the name "truth" have one think of entities as existing inherently
> and independently of consciousness? What is a rose by any other name Marsha?
>
> Who knows, maybe you know something I don't. It's good to keep an open mind
> about these things. But as far as I can see it's best to see truth as simply
> a name for 'high quality intellectual patterns'. There is nothing wrong
> with truth and no need to see it as something different if this is how one
> defines truth.
>
> If you ever want anyone else to see value in what you are saying I think
> you'll need to explain what is wrong with truth to begin with in order to
> show why it's better to consider something else.
The term 'truth' has a long history and a deep association with the search for
certainty.
> It's just common sense. As far as I can see the only problem with truth that
> has ever existed is its placement as the most important thing within SOM.
> This is all Pirsig didn't like about truth. Once, in the MOQ, truth is
> placed as secondary only to value, then all the problems which I think that
> you could possibly perceive with truth - no longer exist.
A better understanding is established by considering and naming objects of
knowledge (stuff in the encyclopedia) _patterns_ rather than truths.
> Otherwise I'm curious as to what problems you see with truth and why it's
> necessary to (your words)'consider' something else instead.
>From your language (s-o oriented), I don't see that you properly present the
>idea that the world is nothing but value. Clinging to the term 'truth' with
>its deeply embedded existing denotations and connotations doesn't move toward
>a new quality orientation. Using 'patterns' clearly cuts the ties to the old
>understanding. It's fresh, it's new, it's a better representation.
Static patterns of value are repetitive processes, conditionally co-dependent,
impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized, that pragmatically tend to
persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern. Within the MoQ, these
patterns are morally categorized into a four-level, evolutionary, hierarchical
structure: inorganic, biological, social and intellectual. Static quality
exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns: patterns depend upon (
exist relative to) innumerable causes and conditions (patterns), depend upon
(exist relative to) parts and the collection of parts (patterns), depend upon
(exist relative to) conceptual designation (patterns). Patterns have no
independent, inherent existence. Further, these patterns pragmatically exist
relative to an individual's static pattern of life history.
> Curiously,
Got me. Hahaha!
>
> -David.
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
