[MD] truth, again

[MarshaV]

Hi Mark,

The last thing I might want to do is beg a question, especially from you, for I often have difficulty answering my own questions and your questions seem like tongue twisters.  What is Ultimately Real versus what is real as patterned value, and are they really separate and really real?  Good questions, and I could spend hours, days, weeks and dreams trying to find a good answer, and wondering what is good, ...  

Marsha


On Dec 5, 2012, at 6:00 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> That is a good understanding as far as I am concerned.  It does beg the question as to what we mean by real.  It seems to me that we participate in the creation of the real.  The real can therefore not be held objectively at arms length.  Through the creation of knowledge we can create ontology.
> 
> The only reason we cannot create ontology and keep it indeterminate, is that is what we want.  What you suggest is what others suggest, and that is to not discuss the nature of Quality.  This goes against what MoQ is for, in my opinion.  I am not sure why everybody is afraid to discuss Quality (create ontology).   Perhaps they lack imagination.  Quality has been discussed from an ontological point of view throughout the ages.
> 
> My guess is that such people misunderstand SQ, and are afraid of it.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Mark
> 
> On Dec 4, 2012, at 9:11 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hi Mark,
>> 
>> It is my understanding that ontology is concerned with what is fundamentally real, while epistemology is concerned with understanding what it is to have knowledge.  For me the MoQ is ontologically indeterminate (DQ), and epistemologically relativistic (sq), relative to past and present patterns of value and the dynamics of moment.  
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>>