[MD] 4 Mark - corrected.

[MarshaV]

Mark, 

I do not know your views of value, but I am interested in your definition of 'truth'?  


Marsha 




On Sep 11, 2012, at 2:55 PM, 118 wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> I do not understand what you mean by interdependency between value an
> consciousness.  Are you suggesting that value exists outside of
> consciousness?  If so, why do you think that?
> 
> I guess I am having a hard time understanding what you mean by value?  If
> value is outside of consciousness, we can only speculate on such a thing
> since we have no access to it.  In my opinion, value is part of, and
> fundamental to, our consciousness.   Value cannot be considered as separate
> from consciousness if we exist in a universe of value.
> 
> 
> On another subject:
> I understand that you are saying that knowledge is not NECESSARILY true.
> This implies that truth exists for you according to your own statemets.
> Otherwise you would not bring truth into it.  So, with that in mind, what
> is true for you?   You are placing a great emphasis on truth when you
> define all of knowledge according to it (your definition of hypothetical).
> 
> When I say uncertainty, I am simply using your definition of "not
> necessarily true" as meaning that maybe it is true, maybe it is not. This I
> call uncertainty.  There is nothing fundamentally wrong with uncertainty.
> There is much more wrong with certainty.
> 
> If truth is not an issue for you, then you should drop it from your
> definition of hypothetical, and perhaps use a definition that is more
> consistent with your views.  Personally, I don't care, and this is just a
> suggestion to help clarify what you mean.
> 
> I am more interested in your views on value, you know mine.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark
> 
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 9:48 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hi Mark,
>> 
>> Rather than patterns are what we create, I tend to understand there is an
>> interdependency between value and consciousness (in all its many
>> varieties.).
>> 
>> The definition that I am using is simply hypothetical:  supposed but not
>> necessarily real or true.  Please note that there is no pointing towards an
>> angst due to uncertainty.  I see uncertainty as a non-issue.
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 11, 2012, at 12:09 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Marsha,
>>> 
>>> Thank you.
>>> 
>>> Believe me; I am fully aware of what you are presenting.  My posts to you
>>> are directed towards what this "hypothetical” leads to in terms of your
>>> awareness.  I am fully in agreement in terms of human arrogance.  MOQ
>>> rectifies this by putting Quality as the first assumption.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> In the past I have presented the concept that: patterns are what we
>>> create.  Such patterns do not exist in and of themselves.  Knowledge is
>> one
>>> example of these patterns.  That we create them does not fall within the
>>> bounds of the hypothetical.  The hypothetical implies that there is a
>> True
>>> pattern.  When we build a house, the intention is not to approximate some
>>> underlying truth (at least for many of us, although Plato would
>>> disagree).  We build a house to have something to live in.  Metaphysics
>> is
>>> no different.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I believe that the nature of knowledge (as a creation, rather than a
>>> search) should be taught at early levels beginning in primary school.
>> This
>>> would stimulate the creative spirit we all have.  We, here in the forum,
>>> are high school graduates (hopefully).  We can even consider ourselves to
>>> be doing graduate work in MOQ.  What you present in terms of the
>>> hypothetical is a basis to move forward with.  The graduate work involves
>>> building on this hypothetical premise and seeing where it leads in terms
>> of
>>> MOQ.  This is the subject on which I am always questioning you.  That you
>>> see everything as "not necessarily true" is fine, but how do you proceed
>>> from there in a philosophical manner?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I am happy that you find uncertainty in what you see, as enlightening to
>>> you.  But that is just a start.  This is metaphysics, which is the
>> building
>>> of a view which others can share in.  Let us move on from you initial
>>> assumption and do some metaphysics, shall we?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I would like to learn more about how seeing the world as Value leads to
>>> "expanded rationality".  Perhaps you can expand on that concept since I
>> am
>>> not quite sure what you mean.  So far as I can tell, rationality does
>>> nothing but expand as we build it.  Are you speaking of a different kind
>> of
>>> rationality, such as spiritual rationality?  If so, then we can discuss
>>> this in honest and trusting dialogue.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I find you to be a breath of fresh air in a sometimes arrogant dogmatic
>>> presentation of MOQ.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Mark
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:09 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Correction...  Should be:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I find it more useful to consider objects of knowledge (stuff in the
>>> encyclopedia) as 'static patterns of value' ("patterns") rather than
>>> 'truths'.  I think the term 'patterns' is a good representation.
>>> 
>>> I prefer to think of patterns 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 '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.)  By using 'hypothetical' I
>>> think there is less of a tendency toward intellectual arrogance.
>>> Understanding static (patterned) value as hypothetical acknowledges the
>>> incompleteness of what we know and makes room for additional inquiry with
>>> new possibilities; it promotes an attitude of fearless curiosity:
>> gumption.
>>> It moves one away from thinking of entities as existing inherently and
>>> independent of consciousness.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
>> 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


 
___