[MD] just fishing (for truth)

[MarshaV]

Hi Ron,

A couple of issues…  First, I am an introvert and can assure you that I think about things a long while before I present them for public scrutiny.   Second, I do not  think of the MoQ as an one-explanation-fits-all type of metaphysics.  What seems good for you, may leave me flat, and vice versa.  Our aims may be different, like I prefer a Buddhist perspective to Contemporary Pragmatism.   And again, I can only state that from a MoQ point-of-view, I would rather address 'static patterns of value' than 'truth'.  

Thanks, 
 
 
Marsha 


On Sep 23, 2012, at 12:53 PM, X Acto wrote:

> Hello Marsha,
> I'm glad you are atleast scrutinizing the term, to me it emphasizes the rational a bit too much
> and de-emphasizes the importance and value of the usefullness and functionality, it places
> too much emphasis on the linguistic aspect as seperate and distinct from the practicle value
> of its normative function.
> Conditional asserts the true as "true" if and only if certain conditions exist in experience, and we
> often are uncertain about those conditions, in fact it's the aim of the art of inquirey. It has an assertion
> of the vulnerability and incompleteness of all knowledge yet it says something about the value and worth
> of the aim.
>  
> -Ron
>  
> .
>  
> 
> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org 
> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 2:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] just fishing (for truth)
> 
> 
> Hi Ron,
> 
> Been thinking about 'hypothetical'.  I have nothing against the terms 'conditional' and 'provincial', and I have quoted the Buddhist's reference to 'conventional (relative) truth' often enough, but they all seem so statically descriptive.  I like 'hypothetical' because their is a hint of a participatory awareness associated with the term.  By holding patterns of value as hypothetical there is _awareness_ of the incompleteness and vulnerability of such knowledge, whether it be in considering justice, money, dogs, trees , time or my relationship with my son or daughter, or you.  I don't see it as a cold scientific term, but as an open-ended, intellectual way to more thoughtfully use consciousness.  I have not been trying to force it upon anyone, merely present it.  It may work for some and not for others, and I like the feedback because it forces me to think a little deeper or maybe find a better way to present it.  
> 
> 
> Marsha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 20, 2012, at 9:22 PM, MarshaV wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hi Ron, 
>> 
>> If 'conditional' is better from your point-of-view, by all means use 'conditional'.  I prefer to think of static patterns of value 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.  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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 20, 2012, at 6:25 PM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Marsha]
>>> 
>>> If I might offer my personal opinion.  I have respect for static (patterned) value; static patterned value is my life.  But, for me, holding patterns as hypothetical is honoring, above all, their fundamental DQ nature.  It's not merely a theoretical opinion.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Ron]
>>> Well, that is a relief because the use of the term hypothetical kinda implies that they are merely hypothesis and are strictly theoretical.
>>> As I mentioned before, the term "conditional" seems to be more the aim of what you are attempting to get across in this regard, but hey
>>> I'm not trying to be nit-picky just trying to help gain some clarity in what you mean.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sep 20, 2012, at 1:57 PM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Mark had said]
>>>> OK, lets say that Truth as discussed from the Quality perspective, an Quality as discussed from the Truth perspective are the same thing, as you state.  How about if we discuss Quality?  Are you game for this.  This is, after all, MOQ.
>>>> 
>>>> How would you present Quality to open the discussion, I have tried many times.  Don't give us this undefinable nonsense for the same can be said of Truth.  Let us discuss a metaphysics based on Quality.  What does this mean to you?
>>>> 
>>>> [Ron replies]
>>>> Thats right Mark, it points to discussions regarding the subject matter of Dynamic Quality. Definitions, descriptions and explanations
>>>> are provisional, they must be open to revision because the test of any definition, description and explanation is the Dynamic flow of
>>>> experience. Now, to say all definition, description and explanation is "hypothetical" is to only look at one side of the coin so to speak,
>>>> It ignores this provisional nature and the test of it's value, in fact it ignores the very nature of value itself.
>>>> 
>>>> A metaphysics based on Quality is the development of meaning in experience it is the perpetual inquirey of what are the best things
>>>> in life.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ..
> 
> 
> 
> ___

 
___