Hi, In response to the opinions of both dmb and Ron, I present the following:
One cannot convert Truth into a static pattern. To do so does not make sense because we end up with relative truths which are not Truth. Therefore, I am in agreement that a discussion concerning Truth could be a red herring so far as MOQ is concerned. What MOQ professes, is to "switch" from a Truth paradigm, to a Quality paradigm. One cannot discuss Truth within the Quality paradigm any more than one can discuss Quality within the Truth paradigm. Both have different rules. One cannot play basketball using the rules of football. In order to discuss Truth within the Quality paradigm, we must convert this Truth into something from the Quality perspective. Then we get the idiotic statement of "a truth of some kind". Well then, what is "a quality of some kind"? This Truth is not the same as the Truth from the Truth perspective. This argument about Truth is similar to trying to disprove religion using a scientific paradigm, it is impossible. Just as impossible is disproving science from a religious paradigm. So it is important to keep in mind that when we speak of Truth within MOQ, we are speaking of that truth which is projected by MOQ. As such it has nothing to do with Truth as the starting place of the Truth paradigm. In the same way, when one speaks of Quality from the Truth perspective, it has nothing to do with Quality. Apples and Oranges, my friends. If Marsha has nothing to say about truth, perhaps it is for these reasons. Perhaps she prefers to discuss Quality. Come to think of it, I don't see much discussion of Quality which should be the heart of these discussions. Why is this? Is MOQ (a metaphysics based on Quality) ambivilent about Quality? Or does such a metaphysics have nothing to do with Quality? How about if we discuss Quality instead of Truth? Or is it that nobody has any interest in discussing Quality, or has nothing to say about Quality? How about you Ron or dmb, do you have anything to say about Quality? If so, what? You can run, but you cannot hide. Mark On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:01 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > [DmB said to Marsha] > Ironically, I think your position takes a pretty big hit from your own > textual evidence. Take a few moments to reflect and compare what you say to > Peter Senge's assertion. You say you have nothing to say about truth, that > you're not interested, and more or less dismiss it all. By contrast Senge > writes: "We “are” our mental models…The discipline of working with mental > models starts with turning the mirror inward; learning to unearth our > internal pictures of the world, to bring them to the surface and hold them > rigorously to scrutiny." > > If we "are" static patterns and the only one who doesn't "pollute" the > world with metaphysical understandings is yet unborn, then having a world > view is avoidably part of what we "are". The only question is its quality. > Since everyone must have a world view, must have a truth of some kind, we > can just passively inherit a hodge-podge of what ever was handed to us or > we can engage in reflection, self-examination, rigorous thought and > otherwise take an active role in scrutinizing that world view. Some people > will even tell you that the unexamined life is not worth living. And yet > you say you just don't care about truth. That's a deeply nihilistic > position and it's based on sloppy "thinking". I think you took a lousy road > to a very nasty place. That's just how it works. Faulty thinking lead to > bad conclusions. > > [Ron sez] > Well, it is rather contradictory also, truth is the goal of any inquirey, > we investigate matters in order to > "discover" their truth, with the point of calling it true being simply > it's being "good" to believe. Not only > does the word commend but serves as a moral appraisal in personal virtue > and an ethical accountability > of actions. It is one thing to note the untenable position of knowledge of > any absolute Truth but quite > another to throw in your hat with the post modern deconstruction of > truth in favor of the practical issues > of living. > The scary-Hairy problem is the disillusionment with the concept of truth > is more widespread and more > deeply rooted than pessimism about devising a satisfactory theory.(Rorty > comes to mind) > > > > .. > > > > > > > > > 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 > 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 > 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
