[MD] 4 Mark - corrected.

[118]

Hi Joe,

When Marsha uses the word hypothetical, she explains that knowledge is "not
necessarily" true, but that it could be.  Otherwise she would simply say
that knowledge is not true.  Marsha seems to be more enamored of knowledge
than I am.  Slightly more arrogant than I am.

 Knowledge is a pattern which we form.  For knowledge to be True this would
imply that such knowledge is "that thing" which it is describing.  This is
of course never true, since we create knowledge as the result of "that
thing".  That Marsha would claim that knowledge is incomplete may be a
revelation for her, but it is quite obvious that knowledge is always
growing and will always be incomplete since we can build it to the stars.

Now, knowledge can be true if it is judged from within the spectrum of
knowledge itself.  In this case, truth is based on consistency with all
other knowledge.  Of course this is impossible so instead we deal with
threads of truth, where the consideration of truth is much more simple.
 Truth is often a semantic illustration.  For example, it is true that "if
I jump in the water I will get wet".  This form of truth is simply a
statement where water and wet mean the same thing.  The previous statement
can be rearranged to say "if I jump in the water, I jump in the water" and
mean exactly the same thing, since jumping into the water and getting wet
are the same thing.

As it turns out, many such truisms are typically a function of semantic
manipulation where it looks like one is saying something, but is only
redifining things.  This is of course one of the properties of the Ghost of
Reason, where a self perpetuating dialogue results which is simply semantic
manipulation (see Wittgenstein, for example).  Many say that for this
reason, knowledge is nothing but a game.  We can certainly take this to
heart and see all of this existence as play, as the hindu mystics do in
interpretting this as the playground of the Gods.

We have different uses of truth.  One is useful, the other is
philosophical.  We all know what truth is in its useful use.  It is the
philosophical truth which is more interesting to discuss.  This would be
the Platonic truth, or Buddhist truth, or pragmatic truth, and so forth.
The truth I propose is none of these, and so I will call it "Tuth118".
This truth is that place from which we start our examination.  For example,
I could claim that truth does not exist.  In order to claim that, I am
assuming that the idea that truth does not exist to be true.
Alternatively, I could say "that balloon is blue".  To claim this, I assume
that what I see is blue.

Before one makes a judgement, one is in a place where there is nothing
contributing to the judgement, yet.  Then the information comes in and a
judgement is made.  It is that place before information that is Truth.
Such Truth makes use of all the information to make a judgement, and then
spits it out.  This truth can be considered as the moral state.  This would
imply that there is an inherent morality from which we start with our
descriptions.  If we are lying, we know it to be immoral in a broad sense.
 Of course there are various forms of lying as well.

"Hypothetical" works for Marsha since she wants to stress that what she
knows is her creation and therefore may not be true.  However, she has to
start somewhere to state that something is "not necessarily true".  This
starting point is Truth, and forms the basis for expression.

Cheers,
Mark

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Joseph Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:

> Hi Marsha and all,
>
> In a philosophical discussion I do not like the word "hypothetical" applied
> to patterns in an environment where evolution has been suggested.  I like
> evolution as levels in existence.
>
> Joe
>
>
> On 9/12/12 9:19 AM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> > 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.)
>
>
> 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
>