On May 21, 2013, at 11:49 PM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
> Okay. Well I see those reasons but I prefer provisional as used by Pirsig for > the reasons I offered. I prefer the term 'provisional' as it makes clear that > we experience value and it exists rather than the term 'hypothetical' which > neglects the value of something and is just something we believe regardless > of whether it is valuable or not. > > Value *exists* and isn't something we "believe" as you make it out to be. Value exists, and a conceptually constructed and projected static pattern of value is thought and thought is imagination and not ultimate reality. > On 22/05/2013, at 1:39 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> That particular difference and what you see clearly is what you value. I >> don't see the difference as you see it. I occasionally use provisional. I >> occasionally use relative. I prefer hypothetical for the reasons I offered. >> >> >> >> On May 21, 2013, at 10:20 PM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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 >> 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
