Jan-Anders,
It would be grossly delusional if I mistook my words and concepts to be certain and complete. That is why I prefer to think of static (patterned) value, objects of knowledge, 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 (supposed but not necessarily real or true.) 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. But, I am not insisting, nor even suggesting, that you adopt my position Marsha On Nov 2, 2012, at 4:02 PM, Jan Anders Andersson <[email protected]> wrote: > Marsha > > Does this mean that your writings and the words and concepts among other > static and predictable patterns are unreal? > > Jan Anders > 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
