[MD] 4 Mark - corrected.

[118]

Marsha,
If we take your view of truth from your proposition of hypothetical, we can
analyze as follows:

Hypothetical = supposed but not necessarily real or true.
Supposed but not necessarily = possibly real + true, or, possibly not real
or true
Hypothetical = real and true + not real or true
So when you are stating that something is hypothetical, you are stating
that the true exists.  What I am wondering, is how you distinguish between
true and untrue?  If you cannot distinguish, then how do you know that the
true exists?  If the true does not exist then why do you use it to descibe
"hypothetical"?

I wrote on truth in previous recent posts, both to Ron and dmb.  Here it is
in a nutshell.  Truth is that place from which we start in our creation of
patterns.  It cannot be pointed to, because it is the window through which
we view all else.  For example, that you would consider "knowledge as
hypothetical" is the truth from which you come.  If instead, you were to
consider "knowledge as hypothetical" as hypothetical, then you would be
ready to be shown how this perspective is untrue.  However, this does not
seem to be your position.

Marsha, you forgot to address my question which was the main reason I
responded to your post:

> 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.

Do you have any thoughts on this, or was it just a throw away opinion?

Thanks,
Mark
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:31 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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
>