[MD] Is experience just DQ?

[MarshaV]

David,

I have stated many, many times that I do not label 'truth' wrong, or bad, or "reject it."  I have nothing to say about 'truth'.  The idea of truth does not interest me. So while I concede that there is nothing inherently bad with the intellectual static pattern of value labeled 'truth', neither is there anything inherently wrong with my finding it more useful to consider objects of knowledge (stuff in the encyclopedia) _patterns_ rather than truths.  'Static patterns of value' represent RMP's terminology, and I think he made an excellent choice. I have never insisted, or suggested, that you or anyone adopt my position.  I like the idea of knowledge being labeled 'patterns'; it is the best representation of static quality.  


Marsha 


On Feb 5, 2013, at 2:46 AM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:

> Goodness Dan,
> 
> I didn't realise that 'true' was a dirty word to you. 
> 
> True is high quality intellectual patterns.  Like Marsha you want to associate the word 'true' to SOM and only take it in this context. In the MOQ true becomes high quality intellectual patterns. That's it.  If an idea isn't good it's not true. If it is, it's true. That's it. Forget SOM truth - there is a better alternative Why do you refuse to see truth in this context? .
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -David
>