[MD] Truth and Relativity 2.0

[118]

Hi David,
I am curious as to how Marsha will intelligently further her position
in this discussion.  She has many tools at her disposal, I wonder
which ones she will use.  Marsha is a deep thinker, and all she needs
is the rhetoric for which to present her point of view.  I believe
that she is improving, but is somewhat of a wrecking ball in the
process.  I am sure she will find a way to fine tune her
presentations, if she has the motivation and patience to do so.
Mark

On 2/7/12, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Marsha,
>
> A few questions before we begin...
>
> What is this Philosophical discussion board to you? Why do you chat here? Is
> it to gain an understanding of others ideas, and thus, your own?  Is it to
> become a better person? Or is it something else entirely?
>
> I ask these questions because it seems to me like sometimes you don't really
> want to discuss your ideas.  Is it because you see some quality that I
> cannot see and could never hope to understand?  If so, what's that quality?
> Can you perhaps try and describe it?
>> 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 agree that the conditioned is a synonym for static quality.  Moreover the
> MOQ makes this relationship between ideas and matter a whole lot more
> coherent than a Subject-Object Metaphysics would.  That inorganic patterns
> exist independently of the mind is a very good idea, but it is just that, an
> idea. That is the relationship inorganic patterns have with the process of
> conceptualisation.  Do you disagree with this? If you do, please tell me
> where I've gone wrong...
>
>> > > 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.
>
> So my definition of consciousness as sq which is capable of responding to DQ
> has no meaning to you in the context which you see things from?   I will
> tell you, from my perspective, that an individuals flow of perceptions and
> conceptions would be static quality. If an individual improves those
> perceptions and conceptions in some kind of better, completely unexpected
> way, then that is DQ at work.  The only disagreement we have here from my
> perspective is that I would add that consciousness can respond to Dynamic
> Quality while percieving and conceiving.  What is your perspective?
>
>> > 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. :-)
> Please talk to me about something without using ideas.. To think that's
> possible is the absurdity.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
> Yes, and this is what we disagree on.  This is the reason why I've started
> the whole topic was because I disagree with you on this sentence. If by
> simply stating the original argument straight back to me you're somehow
> indicating that you no longer want to discuss things - then please just tell
> me.  Otherwise, please tell me why the definitions I have just given are
> wrong so the discussion can continue.
>
>>
>>
>> > > 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.
> And I can agree with and rank your descriptions of reality - The first is
> better than the second. :-)
>
>>
>> > 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?
> Hypothetical clearly. However, are you claiming you don't? If so that's very
> interesting.
>
> -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
>