[MD] 4 Mark - corrected.
MarshaV
valkyr at att.net
Tue Sep 11 19:54:10 PDT 2012
Hi Mark,
Your definition of truth makes very little sense to me. It doesn't seem to be a legitimate definition. What does it mean to say 'truth' is an individual's point-of-view? Would that be whatever flavor of pattern is flowing through consciousness at any given moment, like thinking that 'truth' is an individual's point-of-view? Maybe you have your own paradox to unravel. And such a definition doesn't seem to fit your concerns to "considering patterns as hypothetical" either. I am worried that next someone is going to define 'truth' as a chocolate chip cookie.
If you'd like to discuss a new topic concerning consciousness, I suggest you start a new thread.
Marsha
On Sep 11, 2012, at 6:31 PM, 118 wrote:
> 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
>>
> 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
___
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list