> valkyr said to Harding: > > I prefer to think of all _static patterns of value_ as hypothetical (supposed > but not necessarily real or true.) ...'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.) ...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.) > > [and later added] > > Value exists, and a conceptually constructed and projected static pattern of > value is thought and thought is imagination and not ultimate reality. > > > > dmb commented: > > Thought is static value and not ultimate reality? Gee, where have I heard > that before? It almost sounds like Marsha is saying that there MUST be some > fundamental difference between static patterns and Quality itself, there must > be some basic discrepancy between concepts and reality… With that discrepancy > in mind, let us focus on that first paragraph. Let me show you how Marsha > goes wrong here. It's a fairly good example of a fundamental mistake that she > makes pretty much every time. As you can see, she's trying to explain her > "preference" for the term "hypothetical". The paragraph is quite repetitive > and wordy but it can be cleaned up quite a bit by simply replacing " _static > patterns of value_ as hypothetical (supposed but not necessarily real or > true)" with short, simple words like "concept" or "idea". In that case, > Marsha is saying she "prefers to think of all concepts as hypothetical. > ...'expanded rationality' occurs when an individual transforms the natural > tendency to reify self and world into the natural tendency to hold all > concepts to be hypothetical. ...It moves one away from thinking of entities > as existing inherently. So yes, I prefer to think of concepts as > hypothetical." Did you spot the crucial sentence, the one that tells you > where Marsha has gone wrong? She prefers to think of all _static patterns of > value_ as hypothetical BECAUSE, she says, "It moves one away from thinking of > entities as existing inherently". The problem, quite simply, is that the > MOQ's static patterns are not supposed to be conceived as inherently existing > entities in the first place. Static patterns are already de-reified in the > MOQ. They are set up to replace SOM's conception of inherently existing > things. As is usually the case, Marsha taking the MOQ's critique of SOM and > then misapplying to the MOQ itself. She is treating the cure as if it were > the disease… To understand the world as an inherited pile of analogies is to > understand that we created this world, that we carved it out, that it is far > more plastic and malleable than the realists can imagine. When the oceans, > earth, and sky are understood as analogies, as concepts, then the world of > understanding looses its foundational status, its ontological primacy and is > instead seen as an elaborate set of human concepts.
djh responds: I thought you didn't want to continue our discussion? Inevitably here we are talking again. And once again I'll say it - you're right that Marsha mistakes the cure with the disease.. The important question is *why*. There is more to Marsha than her fuzzy logic.. If you'll acknoweldge what she values you might get somewhere.. 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
