Ron,
On Jan 12, 2013, at 9:58 AM, X Acto wrote:
>
>
> Marsha had stated:
>
> Contradiction is a dis-ease only if one assumes that it is not the immediate
> events and situations that are real but the isolated abstractions. That is
> why I think of _static patterns of value_ as hypothetical (supposed but not
> necessarily real or true.)
>
>
>
> Ron replies:
>
> Contradiction, more accurately, arises out of a lack of understanding. It
> plays an important role in the tradition of critical thinking especially in
> regard to the self evaluative process.
>
> Contradiction arises in immediate events (see cleveland harbor
> effect)[gestalt shifts] it arises out of the incomprehension of those events.
>
> Contradiction, confusion and incomprehension have often been words associated
> with the religous notion of hell.
>
> But contradiction in critical thinking is often the earnote of
> misunderstanding and cause for reflection and evaluation.
>
> To rest on it as asymbol of the ineffiable has potential consequences that
> some find incompatable with the aim of
>
> RMP's work and the attitude of caring, virtue, and excellence in critical
> thinking.
>
>
> ...
>
Oh sure, Ron, your infamous temper tantrums demonstrate that you understand
'caring, virtue and excellence in critical thinking.' NOT! Or are your
statements true just because you think them? Or your cultural glasses have you
seeing things that way. Common Sense? Well, as Albert Einstein said "Common
sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." And your
acting as if you can channel Mr. Pirsig's intentions just is your meaningless
dribble draped in imaginary association with Mr. Pirsig's greatness. Go back
to being a Platonic apologist.
I will repeat:
Contradiction is a dis-ease only if one assumes that it is not the immediate
events and situations that are real but the isolated abstractions. That is why
I think of _static patterns of value_ as hypothetical (supposed but not
necessarily real or true.)
I find it more useful to consider objects of knowledge (stuff in the
encyclopedia) as 'static patterns of value' ("patterns") rather than 'truths'.
The term 'patterns' is a good representation. And 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 (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 entit
ies as existing inherently and independent of consciousness.
Sure, static patterns of value may be considered useful. Who doubts that? Not
I!
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
