On Sep 9, 2012, at 3:05 AM, David Harding wrote: > 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.
I don't buy the "everybody knows" nonsense. I follow the "Find out for yourself." type of knowing. RMP has presented a metaphysics based on empiricism, experience, not what "everybody knows." It would be better to convert what "everybody knows" into patterns held as hypothetical. > 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. I prefer to identify 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. > 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. Yes, I stated many times I have not labeled 'truth' wrong, or bad, or rejected it. So while I concede that there is nothing inherently bad in the pattern 'truth', neither is there anything inherently wrong with my finding 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 aw ay from thinking of entities as existing inherently and existing independent of consciousness. 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
