[MD] Truth and Relativity 2.0

[118]

Hi David,

Perhaps truths are static representations, but truth is not sq.  Truth
is a dynamic awareness from which we form truths.  This would be the
interaction of consciousness, as you present it, with DQ.  It is
important to make this distinction.

If indeed truths are static patterns, then such a truth (about truths)
is also a static pattern.  If this is the case then we can not claim
dominance of one such truth over another.  We cannot say that it is
true that truths are static patterns, for that would imply that one
such truth is more important than another in the description.

It is this sinking into a morass of relativeness that is important to
guard against, otherwise the conversation becomes meaningless.
Indeed, if one proposes a heirachy of truths, and at the same time
states that such a heirarchy is static quality no different from that
which it seeks to encompass, then one has no firm ground on which to
stand.  We cannot claim that the "heirachy of truths" is itself at the
top of the heirarchy, for this would be self-proclaimed dominance.  We
must be careful about the truth about truths.  One is dynamic quality,
the other is static quality.

If RMP claims that static quality represents everything
conceptualized, then where is he speaking from?  We can certainly
agree with him, but such agreement is dynamic, not static.  A
conceptual understanding of conceptual understandings is a circle
which does not promote dynamic quality.  If we rigorously claim that
what Pirsig presents is dogma instead of rhetoric, then we get stuck
with no way out.  One must appreciate the importance of DQ rather than
try to subject it to sq parameters.  This is why Pirsig writes the way
he does about rhetoric.  Presenting verses from the Bible is putting
MoQ into a stranglehold, which many seem willing to do.  We are better
than that having learned from the disasterous consequences of dogmatic
religion.

It is important to realize that the point from which the individual
views the world is DQ in essence.  We are not provided this view from
the outside in, but from the inside out.  Try as we may to promote the
perspective that we must consider our awareness relative to everything
else, it is not possible to do so.  We shine like the sun; the sun
cannot shine on itself.  Quality can not be "before the individual"
since that would put us as separate from Quality, and we then return
to the "God-like" presentation of such a thing.  We are DQ as we
create experiences, we are not subjected to experiences.  Modern
thought in areas such as evolution and psychology would deny this
free-will.  MoQ seeks to dispel our estrangement from Quality, not
strengthen it.  The relegation of our appreciation of existence into
static quality only works in favor of making the human existence
something relative, and in my opinion, meaningless.  The "creation of
meaning" is DQ, (note that I do not state that "meaning is DQ"); It is
about as dynamic as it gets.

I, for one, know that my view out into existence is not relative.  I
have nothing to compare it to since such view is all I have.  To say
that this truth I present in the first sentence in this paragraph is
static quality is missing the whole point, in my opinion.  Let's stay
focussed rather than drift into never ending circles of reason.

Thank you for starting this thread.

Cheers,
Mark

On 2/7/12, 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 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.
>
> 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.
>
> In other words, it's not so much an interdependence, rather consciousness IS
> sq.  But it is sq capable of responding to DQ.
>> 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. 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.
>
> 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.
>
>> 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
>