[MD] What is truth?

[MarshaV]

Hi Mark,

Hmmmm.  I associate understanding the absurd with joyous, insightful laughter.  Maybe we are not so far apart.


Marsha



Sent from my iPad

On Jan 15, 2012, at 12:18 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> I believe that we are creating metaphysics as one of our human expressions.  For me it is not absurd, but marvelous.  I suppose this is my attitude.  We are not describing something but expressing it.  It seems to me that the absurdity comes in when we think that our creations are more than that.  When we build a house, we cannot then say that the house is absurd.  This is the problem with existentialism which fully subscribes to the absurd as dogma.
> 
> There is nothing to describe, only much to create.  We are like a flower, expressing beauty, metaphysics being such an expression.  The flower does not question its beauty, it thrives in it.  This is indeed glorious.
> 
> There is nothing destructive about metaphysics unless one is pretending it is more than it is.  It is enough already.  It is expression of Quality.
> 
> I consider myself fortunate too.
> 
> Luv ya too!
> 
> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
> Mark
> 
> On Jan 15, 2012, at 2:58 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 14, 2012, at 6:41 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Marsha,
>>> Could you explain your metaphysics about static patterns?  I do not see how you arrived at this conclusion.
>> 
>> Greetings Mark,
>> 
>> "Since a metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical definition and since Quality is essentially outside definition, this means that a 'Metaphysics of Quality' is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity.
>> 
>> "It would be almost like a mathematical definition of randomness. The more you try to say what randomness is the less random it becomes. Or 'zero,' or 'space' for that matter. Today these terms have almost nothing to do with 'nothing.' 'Zero' and 'space' are complex relationships of 'somethingness.'  If he said anything about the scientific nature of mystic understanding, science might benefit but the actual mystic understanding would, if anything, be injured. If he really wanted to do Quality a favor he should just leave it alone."
>> 
>>         (RMP,'Lila', Chapter 5)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I think the Buddha would agree with RMP in regards to a 'Metaphysics of Emptiness' or a 'Metaphysics of Nirvana'.  But here we are anyway, "doing philosophy".  Or as Socrates might put it, 'examining a life'.  I am way past householder responsibilities and consider myself fortunate, but know I'm living in the land of absurdity.
>> 
>> Love ya,
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jan 13, 2012, at 10:53 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> 
>>>> I take the term 'truth' to mean "conformity with fact or reality".  In most definitions, “reality” is pretty much defined as “that which exists”.  In the MoQ, static patterns on value exist; exist not as independent, inherent entities, but as patterns.  As such, I take static patterns of value to represent truths.  When I present my definition of 'static patterns of value', I am presenting my definition of 'truths':  
>>>> 
>>>> Static patterns of value are processes, conditionally co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized, that pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern.  Within the MoQ, these patterns are categorized into a four-level, evolutionary, hierarchical structure:  inorganic, biological, social and intellectual. Static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns.  Patterns exist relative to innumerable causes and conditions (patterns), relative to parts and the collection of parts (patterns), relative to conceptual designation (patterns). Patterns have no independent, inherent existence.  Further, these patterns pragmatically exist relative to an individual's static pattern of life history.  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 14, 2012, at 1:38 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I take the term 'truth' to mean "conformity with fact or reality".  In most definitions, “reality” is pretty much defined as “that which exists”.  In the MoQ, static patterns on value exist; exist not as independent, inherent entities, but as patterns.  As such, I take static patterns of value to represent truths.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anybody have a problem with the above statement?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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