[MD] Truth and Relativity 2.0

[118]

Hi David,
Marsha claims that she doesn't know where concepts and precepts
originate.  Yet in the next breath she claims that they originate as
patterns.  This seems somewhat incongruous to me.  Perhaps you can
find out what she means.

If she is a set of equations that are linked together as with modern
physics, then these equations should show her all she needs to know.
If she tries to use an equation to find herself amongst the equations,
then she will certainly fail.  No doubt she will then claim she does
not exist.

I hope you have more luck than I in unraveling this mess she presents.

Mark

On 2/7/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 7, 2012, at 8:14 AM, 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...
>
> Yes and no...  I think it best to consider static patterns of value from two
> different points of view. The first would be the nature of all patterns:
> conditionally co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized.
> A second would be from a categorization point-of-view by evolutionary
> function  - inorganic, biological, social and intellectual – into their
> four-level, hierarchical structure.
>
>
>>>>> 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?
>
> I don't have much to say about 'consciousness'.  RMP has not defined it
> definitively within the MoQ.  And I recently watched about nine-hours of
> presentation on consciousness from a conference on the topic: The
> Consciousness Chronicles.  The major players in the field no not present any
> consensus on the topic of consciousness, and neither do I.  Where does
> concepts and percepts originate?   I don't know...
>
> From a personal, lived perspective, in meditation I can watch bits and
> pieces of patterns flow through 'mind'.
>
> I have just begun to investigate the aggregates within Buddhism.  What I am
> reading is very interesting and I wonder how they (the aggregates) might
> relate to patterns, but I have not formed any opinion yet.  They are
> intimately related to Dependent Origination; that's all I can say.
>
>
>>>> 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.
>
> Exactly!!!  And I can't forget it.  People seem to think I am putting
> forward a big joke, but I'm not.  I can't forget it.
>
>
>>>> 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.
>
> Okay, than we disagree.  I don't know what to say about that.  I certainly
> do get that static patterns are some concrete, reified thing.  I have them
> as conditionally co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized
> process.
>
> Are you saying a static pattern of value is identical for every individual?
> How do you define static patterns of value?
>
>
>>>>> 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. :-)
>>
>
> The first I consider the MoQ's theoretical presentation, the second I
> consider from my lived-experience perspective.  On this site it is best to
> keep them separate least you get accused of reinterpreting RMP.
>
>
>>>> 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.
>
> You seem to want to state "everybody knows" but deny the change implemented
> by an individual; while I have it an 'conditionally co-dependent,
> impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized process'.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
> 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
>