[MD] Good Mystic, Bad Mystic.

[118]

Hi Marsha,
As a scientist my work is asking questions.  The trick is to ask a good question.  As knowledge becomes readily available on the net, education will switch to teaching how to ask good questions, rather than accumulating knowledge.

In truth every static representation is an answer to a question, such as "what is that?".  I prefer to think of SQ as the creation of an answer, rather than a hypothetical, but it is probably the same thing.  

We bring the static into existence.  That is the wonderful power that we have.  By this viewpoint, SQ does not control us, we wield it!  We are magicians at play.  With this power we operate from the realm of DQ.

MOQ provides instruction on how this works.  It is a method of alchemy where we transform DQ into SQ.  So long as we understand this ability, we are not victims of SQ.  The mystical is the starting point for each of our creations.  This starting point lies in The Good.  Such are the teachings of MOQ.


Mark

On Aug 18, 2012, at 4:05 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> Greetings Mark,
> 
> You have reminded me of a quote by Niels Bohr: "Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question."  
> 
> Another reason that I like thinking of static (patterned) value as hypothetical (supposed but not neccesarily real or true) is that it promotes an attitude of fearless curiosity: gumption; and it is 'useful' to hold this view because it is less likely to conspire towards the stagnation and ossification of creative, dynamic thinking. 
> 
> 
> Marsha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 18, 2012, at 11:06 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Perhaps there is another manner of looking at truth.  In this view truth is not an objective construct, but rather a place one views from.  Truth can be considered as an operational mode of being.
>> 
>> When we express ourselves from the region of truth it is very different from when we construe a reality from the area of deceit.  One could say that "it is good to question" is a true statement.  Or, another true statement is that "existence stems from Value".  This form of truth becomes the basis from which one operates.
>> 
>> Once one begins with such a truth, the manner of subsequent interpretation falls within the viewpoint of this manner of truth.
>> 
>> The point would be to dismiss truth as an objective result, and consider it as a pair of glasses.  For example, the truth that "truth is useful" is not a conclusion, but instead it is a starting point.  This makes such truth a premise for further interpretation.  When it becomes such, it is no longer considered objectively and can indeed be forgotten since such truth was simply a raft to get to a new place.
>> 
>> All this would imply is that truth is neither objective or subjective.  It is a manner of being.  When we operate from the stratosphere of truth, things fit together, until they don't; another truth...
>> 
>> 
>> Mark
>> 
>> On Aug 18, 2012, at 12:52 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello David,
>>> 
>>> The word 'truth' does not interest me.  I prefer to think of objects of knowledge as hypothetical.  Once one accepts the MoQ's fundamental truth 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 neccesarily real or true.)  Understanding static (patterned) value as hypothetical acknowledges the incompleteness of what we know and makes room for additional inquiry with new possibilities.  It certainly moves away from thinking of entities as existing inherently, and independent of consciousness.  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Marsha
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Aug 18, 2012, at 3:48 AM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hello Marsha,
>>>> 
>>>>> "Unlike subject-object metaphysics the Metaphysics of Quality does not insist on a single exclusive truth. If subjects and objects are held to be the ultimate reality then we're permitted only one construction of things - that which corresponds to the 'objective' world - and all other constructions are unreal. But if Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then it becomes possible for more than one set of truths to exist. Then one doesn't seek the absolute Truth.' 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. One can then examine intellectual realities the same way one examines paintings in an art gallery, not with an effort to find out which one is the 'real' painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of value. There are many sets of intellectual reality in existence
> 
>> a
>>> n
>>>> d we can perceive some to have more quality than others, but that we do so is, in part, the result of our history and current patterns of values."
>>>>> (LILA)
>>>>> 
>>>>> And why I consider your opinions, as well as mine, hypothetical (supposed but not neccesarily real or true.)
>>>> 
>>>> You are still using the word 'truth' as if it refers to some fixed ideal.  Yes you are recognising the insufficiency of such a viewpoint - but when you shy away from using the term 'truth' you still seem to be under the impression that all it could ever refer to is a 'single exclusivity'.  But as the quote you provide explains - truths are not to be taken as some fixed ideal but they are to be taken as *useful* until something better comes along.  
>>>> 
>>>> The key word here as I have highlighted is *useful*.  Is it *useful* to tell the victims families of the Hiroshima bombings that the bombs which killed their loved ones were 'hypothetical'?  No, in fact it is very un-empathetic and not useful.  Is it *useful* to say that the only way truth can be interpreted is as a single exclusivity?  As the quote explains -  no it is not useful and so it is not true!  So please stop shying away from the word truth and using 'hypothetical' instead as if truth has only one meaning.  Truth is provisional and taken as useful until something better comes along!   That is quite different than hypothetical. If you cannot see that then please look at a dictionary.  
>>>> 
>>>> -David.
> 
> 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