[MD] Comparing

[Carl Thames]

Hi, Mark.  Sorry it's taken me so long to reply to this.  Wrapping up a 
semester and all.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Comparing


> Hi Carl,
> Thanks for your post, and yes, I believe the question pertains to MoQ.
>
> Under the rubric of "survival" (which is often used to explain
> evolutionism), I agree with your presentation.  If we move into the
> stratosphere of contemplation or thought, we can categorize
> comparison, or relativity, as one form of thought and consider other
> ways in which we can interpret the world.  Indeed, for survival we
> must place a snake into the immediate realm of its direct relevance to
> the situation we find ourselves.  If what we think is a snake is
> actually a rope, then we can contemplate what this mistake means in a
> broader sense.  In the same way we can consider what our
> conceptualizing of the world as relative means, and what the
> alternatives are.

Carl:
I agree, to a point.  We can re-classify the rope as "not snake" but the 
next time we see something similar, our first reaction is going to be 
"snake."  It's the way we're wired.  This is more relevant to the discussion 
later.

Mark:
> In my opinion, Quality cannot be addressed through comparison, putting
> it outside of Relativism.  In the same way, MoQ can be considered on
> its own, rather than its relationship with other forms of thought.
> Using this method, the "qualities" of things can also be seen as not
> relative to each other.  If we are presented with a good apple and a
> bad apple, we choose.  Choosing is a process of comparison.  But if we
> question what does a good apple v a bad apple mean intrinsically it is
> possible to remove ourselves from the relative framework.  I think
> this goes to the heart of MoQ, where Quality is presented as a
> fundamental noun.

Carl:
I understand what you're saying.  You're presenting the concept of "Quality" 
as an inherent effect, not as a descriptor so much as a stand-alone "is" 
that's distinct from the essense of the thing itself.  I think you want to 
remove it from the mental process completely.  i.e. we don't compare SQ and 
DQ, they just happen.  The nit that I would have to pick with that idea is 
that once it's removed from the mental process, it becomes somewhat sterile. 
Is that how you see it?  It stops having an impact on anything.  It just is.

Mark:
> It is easy to couch our understanding using strict concepts such as
> ephemeral, co-dependent, or non-inherent to help us cope with
> questions we have, but these are relative concepts used to oppose
> equally valid concepts such as permanence and inherent existence.  We
> fall into the trap of stating that change a permanent process which
> then leaves us with an independent and inherent existence.  One
> strategy is to get away from this Yin Yang approach and view MoQ
> differently.  That is from a place which is neither inherent or
> non-inherent, neither "ever-changing" or permanent.  This is what I
> believe Buddhism means by "the middle way".  The idea is to let go of
> these concepts that we cling to.

Carl:
I agree, but I'm not sure it's possible.  We are divided into material and 
mental, and that dichotomy isn't going away.  Where does "Quality" fit on 
that spectrum?  Is it totally material, in that is applies to everything in 
whatever essense presents, or is it mental in that it's completely within 
our perspectives?  Somewhere in the middle?  Do you see the problem here?

Mark:
> In my opinion, the Zen approach does just this.  It is a mix of
> Mahayana Buddhism and Taoism.  It addresses the "moment" as permanent,
> and requires constant reincarnation to provide some consistency to
> what we see as a continuous self.  It emphasizes the usefulness of
> paying attention to the moment.

Carl:
I've heard the argument that the moment is all we really have, but there are 
so many variables involved that I think it's disingenius.  We act as we've 
either been taught to act or in a manner that's inherent in our nature (not 
getting into the nature/nurture argument here) to the point that stating 
that we live only in the moment is silly.  If we've been bitten by a dog 
before, we automatically react to the man-eating chihauhua that's coming at 
us.  The chihuahua is in the moment, but our reaction is from something that 
happened in the past.  How much of tomorrow is involved in today?  I'm 
taking classes, preparing myself for yet another career change.  I can't 
just put on the uniform of my new career and start doing it, I have to 
prepare first.  That's not living in the moment.  Every minute I spend 
studying is a future-enhancing thing.  I'm doing it now, but I'm not doing 
it FOR now.  Granted, in the event of the heat death of the universe, my 
time will have been wasted, but I still spend it studying, because I think 
the likelyhood of the sun exploding is negligable enough that I don't have 
to worry about it.  Does that make me a pragmatist?

Mark:
> So, I do not necessarily question the usefulness of placing everything
> within a relative framework.  What I am trying to explore are the
> limits of such usefulness and perhaps destructive tendencies of
> Relativism in our modern world.  I believe we are allowed modes of
> theoretical thought that can remove us from everyday empiricism; I am
> not a positivist or a materialist in this sense.  Words are intended
> to give us a sense of control over things, as has been philosophized
> through the ages.  At the same time, words can also relinquish our
> sense of control.  Neither of these approaches is adequate for MoQ, in
> my opinion.

Carl:
You're arguing for changing the basic paradigm, and I am on your side of the 
argument.  I'm just not sure it's possible.  You want to change the basic 
nature with which we interact with the world.  How would you do that?  I've 
got five children, and I watched all five figure out how they fit within the 
world.  All of them came to themselves via a relativist position.  Mostly, 
it was a birth-order thing, where they fit themselves into the dynamic of 
the existing family sturcture.  Within that, I worked very hard to make sure 
they were all independent.  Outside the family, they are extremely 
independet.  Within the family, they are ruled by their mother, who is a 
traditional Korean woman.  Birth order and sex determine their position 
relative to their mother.  With me, they are seperate entities and I treat 
them as such.  How would they incorporate everything they've learned and 
discard it?  Would they?  I think what you're after is for them to get to a 
point where they are completely independent, responding only to their own 
ideation of their individual essense.  Kind of a fascinating thought, but 
again, I'm not sure it's possible.  (Economic, social, etc. considerations 
apply here.)  What do you think?  Better question: If they could, would they 
all end up like Paris Hilton?