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 re al 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 >>>> snip. . . 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
