[MD] The usefulness of hypthetical as an attribute

[118]

Hi Joe,
Thank you for your post.  I have changed the subject line since I do not
like to see myself "corrected"...:-).

It is my understanding that Marsha uses the "hypothetical" to provide
awareness to the static nature of our knowledge.  What confuses me, is that
she claims that such knowledge could be true.

Knowledge is something we create.  This knowledge falls within the realm of
static quality.  There is no end to knowledge since there is no end to
creation.  It is like we are continually remodeling and adding additions to
a home.  Within this premise, knowledge cannot be hypothetical since it is
real.  Truth in the common sense use of the word is a conditional
statement.  Truth in a philosophical sense is something completely
different.

I see experience as something we create.  There is no such thing as
experience floating around as an entity on its own.  Experience results
from us.  This can be explained in Western terms as "that which results
from the continual balance between our bodies and that which lies outside
our bodies.  Since this experience is a continual process of adjustment, it
is comprised of both our bodies and the environment, and one cannot
distinguish between the two.  That is, there is no "defined border" where
the environment ends, and our bodies start.

Within this concept one can more easily adapt to Eastern methods of
awareness.  This would include the idea that all of creation is an
"organic" dance which is constantly moving down the dance floor.  Since
each part plays a role in this unfolding dance, we can say that not only
are we a part of the universe, but also that we ARE the universe.  We are
both a subset, and the set itself.  This becomes more clear if one becomes
acquainted with the Alchemical traditions.

The question would be, when does experience transition from the undefinable
into the definable?  What is required for this to happen, and is transition
back into the undefinable possible?  If one contemplates on this, one may
find that the definable itself is undefinable.  That such definable is
simply a matter of agreement, and has little meaning outside of
communication and adaptation.  There is nothing magical about SQ, and in
fact the difference between SQ and DQ cannot be pointed to.  This is not to
say that such concepts are not useful in a general sense.

I would argue that perception and experience mean the same thing within a
metaphysics based on Quality.  I would also say that what you term
"experience", or even "emotions" are part of the transition between DQ and
SQ.  It is from our generation of experience, that we are able to form
patterns within the mind.  With this in mind, experience is a building
block for SQ.  SQ is the final result signifies a dead end.  On this SQ,
more SQ can be created, and thus we have the stairway of knowldege.

SQ represents patterns.  Patterns do not exist outside of our creation of
them.  We are very good at creating patterns, and that is a good thing.
Long live SQ!

To create the concept of evolution, we bring together different patterns
into a master pattern. Within such metapattern, we distinguish patterns as
levels.  Of course these levels do not exist outside of our creation of
them.  This is the concept of ideas.  Ideas are patterns which we create.
The idea of Quality, or Evolution, or matter, results in those patterns.
None of these existed before the idea was created, in the same way that a
constellation does not exist before we connect the stars.  However, once we
have connected the stars, the constellations are very real.

Evolution is a tricky subject, since it is self-defining.  We create
patterns that we claim came before our ability to create these patterns.
What came before this ability to create patterns is a complete Void.  We
cannot use what we create (pattens) to point to somewhere before those
patterns.  We cannot claim that Quality existed before we came up with it,
in a logical fashion.  To make such a claim requires a leap of faith.  That
is, to believe in something that can never be proven.  This is truly not a
problem since "proof" comes through usefulness.  That one would claim that
one manner of faith is better than another, is simply a statement of the
utility of such a faith to that particular person.  Such judgement cannot
be placed into a world of relativity.

Claiming that something is hypothetical such as is being done, has no
meaning.  The only meaning it would have is to those who believe it is not
hypothetical.  As I understand it, Marsha must keep telling herself that
her knowledge is nothing more than a created pattern.  Once she gets beyond
this stage, she will no longer need to consider it in this way.  As they
say in Zen, "the mountains will once again become the mountains".  Such a
transition is, of course, entirely up to her.

Cheers,
Mark.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Joseph Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:

> Hi Mark and All,
>
> In a metaphysics formulated as DQ/SQ, experience becomes an arbiter for
> truth.  There is always something in my experience which is indefinable,
> yet
> knowable.  Perception through logic becomes important in communication.
>
> IMHO Hypothetical describes a rough draft. Indefinable DQ describes a
> resolution from individual perception rather than fallible observation.
> This
> opens the door of logic for evolution as levels in existence.
>
> Joe
>
>
> On 9/12/12 8:26 PM, "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
> 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
>