I don't "believe" anything Marsha. Like Steve Hagen, I *know* what's good and what isn't good - and you do too. Along these lines I'm interested in and value what you write (same goes for dmb too believe it or not). I wouldn't talk to you otherwise. Simply trying to understand what you write is an act of caring. I want to understand what you write. But to me there is a clear difference between 'hypothetical' and 'provisional'. So do you see the difference in those two terms? How 'provisional' is *using* the quality of something, while a 'hypothetical' is *before* the quality of something is determined? Do you see that difference? On 22/05/2013, at 11:39 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi David, > > Yes, as I have previously explained, I prefer to think of all _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 (imho) '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.) There is less of a tendency > toward intellectual arrogance. Considering static (patterned) value as > hypothetical acknowledges the incompleteness of what we know and promotes > additional inquiry with the potential for new discoveries and possibilities. > It encourages an attitude of fearless gumption and intellectual curiosity. > It moves one away from thinking of entities as existing inherently. So yes, > I prefer to think of _static patterns of value_ as hypothetical (supposed but > not necessarily real or true.) > > You might prefer 'provisional', like you might prefer to call me an > "anti-intellectual" or a "bad mystic". You believe what you believe. > > > Marsha > > > > On May 21, 2013, at 7:05 PM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > >> What about 'provisionally' or 'provisionals'? Would you be happy with that >> word instead? >> >> "One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of things >> with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future this >> explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until something better >> comes along." - Lila >> >> Because I ran a search on Lila for the word 'hypothetical' and it isn't >> mentioned once... I think there's a good reason why Pirsig didn't use the >> word hypothetically in his sentence above. That reason, I think, is that >> there's an important difference between the two words… >> >> Here's what the dictionary says: >> >> Provisional - "subject to further confirmation; for the time being: the >> film, provisionally entitled Skin, is due to be released next year." >> >> Hypothetical - "supposed but not necessarily real or true. Logic - denoting >> or containing a proposition of the logical form if p then q ." >> >> In the first instance - provisional is about 'USING something until >> something else - better - may come along'. >> >> Hypothetical is about PROPOSING or SUPPOSING something REGARDLESS of whether >> we use it or how good it is. >> >> In other words 'Hypothetical' is REGARDLESS of the value of something and >> whether we use it or not. It is about PROPOSING something - not >> provisionally USING something like the word provisional suggests. So one of >> these words acknowledges the quality of something while the other is before >> we judge the quality of something. >> >> Can you see that difference between the two words at least? >> >> >> On 22/05/2013, at 12:07 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Since the MoQ has conceptualizations as useful fictions, I think it is in >>> agreement with RMP. I certainly do not think he'd object. >>> >>> >>> >>> On May 21, 2013, at 7:31 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> You can't answer a question? It's not abstract - it's just a question >>>> about whether you think your view of static patterns of value as >>>> 'hypothetical' is in line with what Pirsig has written about them? It's >>>> about what you think not abstract. >>>> >>>> On 21/05/2013, at 9:16 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> RMP has said many things about static patterns of value, I don't see how >>>>> I can offer a specific answer to such a general, abstract question, so I >>>>> won't. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On May 21, 2013, at 6:29 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Marsha, >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you consider this in line with what Pirsig has said about static >>>>>> patterns of value? >>>>>> >>>>>> On 21/05/2013, at 7:17 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> dmb, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 20, 2013, at 8:38 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> dmb quotes RMP: >>>>>>>> "...the MOQ does not insist on a single exclusive truth. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Okay, you, dmb, consider static patterns of value to represent truths. >>>>>>> I consider static patterns of value to represent hypotheticals. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 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
