[MD] theories of truth

[MarshaV]

On May 21, 2013, at 11:49 PM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:

> Okay. Well I see those reasons but I prefer provisional as used by Pirsig for the reasons I offered. I prefer the term 'provisional' as it makes clear that we experience value and it exists rather than the term 'hypothetical' which neglects the value of something and is just something we believe regardless of whether it is valuable or not.
> 
> Value *exists* and isn't something we "believe" as you make it out to be.


Value exists, and a conceptually constructed and projected static pattern of value is thought and thought is imagination and not ultimate reality.  



> On 22/05/2013, at 1:39 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> That particular difference and what you see clearly is what you value.  I don't see the difference as you see it. I occasionally use provisional.  I occasionally use relative. I prefer hypothetical for the reasons I offered.  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On May 21, 2013, at 10:20 PM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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 
>>>> 
 

snip. . .