[MD] Truth and Relativity 2.0

[MarshaV]

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 7, 2012, at 6:17 AM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Marsha, 
> 
> I agree.  Truths are static patterns. Static intellectual patterns to be precise.  Your definition of truth from the dictionary is also one that I agree with.  More below..

I disagree.  The statement is "‘Static quality’ refers to anything that can be conceptualised and is a synonym for the conditioned in Buddhist philosophy."  To me that includes patterns from all levels.  Inorganic patterns have a relationship with the process of conceptualization, too. 


>> 
>> I think (conventionally speaking, of course) that truths are static patterns. 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 
>> RMP has stated that static quality represent everything that can be conceptualized, which indicates an interdependence with consciousness. (Not patterns equal thoughts or ideas, but a dependency.)
> 
> Well here I think that static quality is thoughts and ideas, while consciousness is these thoughts and ideas being capable of responding to DQ.

Your statement here has no meaning for me.  I meant consciousness only as an individual's flow of perceptions and conceptions (thoughts and ideas).  Beyond that I have know experience.



> Remember the debate between the materialists and the idealists? The idealists won. There isn't anything you can think of which isn't from a human perspective.  Consciousness is an idea(that I've just defined) not a physical thing.

Thoughts and ideas are an idea.  That we think is idea.  Absurdity?  Certainly.  :-) 


> In other words, it's not so much an interdependence, rather consciousness IS sq.  But it is sq capable of responding to DQ.  

Well, as already stated our truth of an individual's definition of 'consciousness' will exist relative to an individual's static pattern history and the dynamic quality in the present event.  


>> Static patterns (conventional truths) may be ranked according to their placement within the MoQ's evolutionary, hierarchical structure: inorganic, biological, social and intellectual. Explain how the ranking would be accomplished without the individual?
>> 
> 
> I should be clear here and say that I don't claim that ranking can occur without an individual, what I do claim however is that the quality of the ranking is independent of the individual.

Reality = Quality(DQ/sq), or Reality = experience(unpatterned/patterned).  I can agree that quality comes before conceptualization.  


> Everyone knows what quality is. The reason why we disagree is because we have each had a different life experience.  People who have had a similar life experience will hold similar values.   

And?  Who is the everyone who knows?  


> Therefore, because quality is before the individual - how good something is, goes before everything. Before  even the MOQ. Remember how the MOQ is open to be replaced by something better? This structure isn't the be all and end all of ranking structures. 
>> The definition of truths that I use:
>> 
>> truths noun
>> 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: _the truth of a statement_.
>> 
>> How do you define truths?
>> 
> The same way.

On the face of it, that's a relief.


Marsha



> 
>> p.s. Please bare with me. Sunday morning my hard drive failed, so my iMac is getting a hd transplant and I seem to be coming down with the flu; due I'm sure to spending time with my grandson. Anyway, I'm a little off. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> That's okay.  Take care Marsha! 
> 
> -David.
> 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