[MD] theories of truth

[David Harding]

I don't "believe" anything Marsha. Like Steve Hagen, I *know* what's good and what isn't good - and you do too.  Along these lines I'm interested in and value what you write (same goes for dmb too believe it or not). I wouldn't talk to you otherwise.  Simply trying to understand what you write is an act of caring.  I want to understand what you write.  But to me there is a clear difference between 'hypothetical' and 'provisional'.  So do you see the difference in those two terms?  How 'provisional' is *using* the quality of something, while a 'hypothetical' is *before* the quality of something is determined? Do you see that difference?
 
On 22/05/2013, at 11:39 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> Hi David,
> 
> Yes, as I have previously explained, I prefer to think of all _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 (imho) '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.)  There is less of a tendency toward intellectual arrogance.  Considering static (patterned) value as hypothetical acknowledges the incompleteness of what we know and promotes additional inquiry with the potential for new discoveries and possibilities.   It encourages an attitude of fearless gumption and intellectual curiosity.  It moves one away from thinking of entities as existing inherently.  So yes, I prefer to think of _static patterns of value_ as hypothetical (supposed but not necessarily real or true.) 
> 
> You might prefer 'provisional', like you might prefer to call me an "anti-intellectual" or a "bad mystic".  You believe what you believe.  
> 
> 
> Marsha 
> 
> 
> 
> On May 21, 2013, at 7:05 PM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> What about 'provisionally' or 'provisionals'?  Would you be happy with that word instead?
>> 
>> "One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of things with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until something better comes along." - Lila
>> 
>> Because I ran a search on Lila for the word 'hypothetical' and it isn't mentioned once...  I think there's a good reason why Pirsig didn't use the word hypothetically in his sentence above.  That reason, I think, is that there's an important difference between the two words…  
>> 
>> Here's what the dictionary says:
>> 
>> Provisional - "subject to further confirmation; for the time being: the film, provisionally entitled Skin, is due to be released next year."
>> 
>> Hypothetical - "supposed but not necessarily real or true.  Logic - denoting or containing a proposition of the logical form if p then q ."
>> 
>> In the first instance - provisional is about 'USING something until something else - better - may come along'.
>> 
>> Hypothetical is about PROPOSING or SUPPOSING something REGARDLESS of whether we use it or how good it is.
>> 
>> In other words 'Hypothetical' is REGARDLESS of the value of something and whether we use it or not.  It is about PROPOSING something - not provisionally USING something like the word provisional suggests. So one of these words acknowledges the quality of something while the other is before we judge the quality of something.
>> 
>> Can you see that difference between the two words at least?
>> 
>> 
>> On 22/05/2013, at 12:07 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Since the MoQ has conceptualizations as useful fictions, I think it is in agreement with RMP.  I certainly do not think he'd object. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On May 21, 2013, at 7:31 AM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> You can't answer a question? It's not abstract - it's just a question about whether you think your view of static patterns of value as 'hypothetical' is in line with what Pirsig has written about them? It's about what you think not abstract.
>>>> 
>>>> On 21/05/2013, at 9:16 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> RMP has said many things about static patterns of value, I don't see how I can offer a specific answer to such a general, abstract question, so I won't.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On May 21, 2013, at 6:29 AM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Marsha,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Do you consider this in line with what Pirsig has said about static patterns of value?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 21/05/2013, at 7:17 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> dmb,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On May 20, 2013, at 8:38 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> dmb quotes RMP:
>>>>>>>> "...the MOQ does not insist on a single exclusive truth.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Okay, you, dmb, consider static patterns of value to represent truths.  I consider static patterns of value to represent hypotheticals.  
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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