Hi Ron, A couple of issues… First, I am an introvert and can assure you that I think about things a long while before I present them for public scrutiny. Second, I do not think of the MoQ as an one-explanation-fits-all type of metaphysics. What seems good for you, may leave me flat, and vice versa. Our aims may be different, like I prefer a Buddhist perspective to Contemporary Pragmatism. And again, I can only state that from a MoQ point-of-view, I would rather address 'static patterns of value' than 'truth'.
Thanks, Marsha On Sep 23, 2012, at 12:53 PM, X Acto wrote: > Hello Marsha, > I'm glad you are atleast scrutinizing the term, to me it emphasizes the > rational a bit too much > and de-emphasizes the importance and value of the usefullness and > functionality, it places > too much emphasis on the linguistic aspect as seperate and distinct from the > practicle value > of its normative function. > Conditional asserts the true as "true" if and only if certain conditions > exist in experience, and we > often are uncertain about those conditions, in fact it's the aim of the art > of inquirey. It has an assertion > of the vulnerability and incompleteness of all knowledge yet it says > something about the value and worth > of the aim. > > -Ron > > . > > > From: MarshaV <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 2:02 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] just fishing (for truth) > > > Hi Ron, > > Been thinking about 'hypothetical'. I have nothing against the terms > 'conditional' and 'provincial', and I have quoted the Buddhist's reference to > 'conventional (relative) truth' often enough, but they all seem so statically > descriptive. I like 'hypothetical' because their is a hint of a > participatory awareness associated with the term. By holding patterns of > value as hypothetical there is _awareness_ of the incompleteness and > vulnerability of such knowledge, whether it be in considering justice, money, > dogs, trees , time or my relationship with my son or daughter, or you. I > don't see it as a cold scientific term, but as an open-ended, intellectual > way to more thoughtfully use consciousness. I have not been trying to force > it upon anyone, merely present it. It may work for some and not for others, > and I like the feedback because it forces me to think a little deeper or > maybe find a better way to present it. > > > Marsha > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 20, 2012, at 9:22 PM, MarshaV wrote: > >> >> Hi Ron, >> >> If 'conditional' is better from your point-of-view, by all means use >> 'conditional'. I prefer to think of static patterns of value as >> hypothetical (supposed but not necessarily real or true.) 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. By using 'hypothetical' I >> think there is less of a tendency toward intellectual arrogance. >> 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 >> independent of consciousness. >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> On Sep 20, 2012, at 6:25 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> [Marsha] >>> >>> If I might offer my personal opinion. I have respect for static >>> (patterned) value; static patterned value is my life. But, for me, holding >>> patterns as hypothetical is honoring, above all, their fundamental DQ >>> nature. It's not merely a theoretical opinion. >>> >>> >>> [Ron] >>> Well, that is a relief because the use of the term hypothetical kinda >>> implies that they are merely hypothesis and are strictly theoretical. >>> As I mentioned before, the term "conditional" seems to be more the aim of >>> what you are attempting to get across in this regard, but hey >>> I'm not trying to be nit-picky just trying to help gain some clarity in >>> what you mean. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 20, 2012, at 1:57 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mark had said] >>>> OK, lets say that Truth as discussed from the Quality perspective, an >>>> Quality as discussed from the Truth perspective are the same thing, as you >>>> state. How about if we discuss Quality? Are you game for this. This is, >>>> after all, MOQ. >>>> >>>> How would you present Quality to open the discussion, I have tried many >>>> times. Don't give us this undefinable nonsense for the same can be said >>>> of Truth. Let us discuss a metaphysics based on Quality. What does this >>>> mean to you? >>>> >>>> [Ron replies] >>>> Thats right Mark, it points to discussions regarding the subject matter of >>>> Dynamic Quality. Definitions, descriptions and explanations >>>> are provisional, they must be open to revision because the test of any >>>> definition, description and explanation is the Dynamic flow of >>>> experience. Now, to say all definition, description and explanation is >>>> "hypothetical" is to only look at one side of the coin so to speak, >>>> It ignores this provisional nature and the test of it's value, in fact it >>>> ignores the very nature of value itself. >>>> >>>> A metaphysics based on Quality is the development of meaning in experience >>>> it is the perpetual inquirey of what are the best things >>>> in life. >>>> >>>> >>>> .. > > > > ___ ___ 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
