Hi Marsha, >> 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.
Agreed. >> You are constantly explaining your alternative to me.. > > Yes, because I find it a high value explanation. I understand that, and I'm trying to see value in it while explaining to you the problems I see with it and why I think an alternative way is of higher value.. > The term 'truth' has a long history and a deep association with the search > for certainty.. 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. So this is your explanation as to why 'truth' has issues. It has 'deeply embedded existing denotations and connotations' and has a history with the search for certainty. Do you disagree that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet? That's interesting. How can a word 'embed' value in this way? Simply by changing the name of something, does that change the underlying qualities of that thing? If you asked someone who had never heard of the MOQ what quality was, do you think they would give an answer appropriate to the MOQ? Do you think they would say it is the source of all things and creates the world in which we live? I don't think they would. Indeed, it's very likely you would receive a poor answer as to what quality was by the majority of the worlds population for the last 2500 years. Because of that deep misunderstanding, do you think we should throw out the word 'quality'? Replace it with something else? Create a fresh, new word which means the same thing? The power of good philosophy, is that it takes what we already know and shows it to us in a way which we hadn't considered before. Everyone knows what quality is. Simply, our intellectual understanding of it for the last 2500 years has been incorrect. The same goes for truth. Everyone knows what truth is. It is just that our intellectual understanding of the best place for it within metaphysics for the last 2500 years has been wrong. If, using the MOQ, we get a better understanding of truth, then that is valuable, not just for truth into the future, but for everything ever written about truth. We can take those truths from the past which are valuable and discard those which are not. There is nothing inherent in the word 'truth' which makes it bad. They are just letters on a page. Changing our incorrect interpretations which we bring to words however, is what really changes things. -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
