[MD] Truth and Relativity 2.0

[MarshaV]

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 8, 2012, at 6:03 PM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> 
> The MOQ is Mysticism. It denies that anything can be truly defined once and for all.  Is this the beauty of the MOQ which you see?  It is the same with Buddhism.  It points out that things are always changing and so when we treat things as fixed, we are deluding ourselves and setting ourselves up for a great deal of pain in the process when something we thought existed, doesn't..

Yes, and it is also because of the continual change that there is beauty, or existence, or life, or whatever...  


>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> Why is it better to see things this way rather than what I have presented? Where have I gone wrong? I agree with your categorisation point of view, and I agree that all patterns are impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualised however I cannot agree that they are 'conditionally co-dependent' or 'relative'. Why is it better to say that patterns are conditionally co-dependent?
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I can find no fixed reference point in regards to static patterns of value, the individual, or the relationship between them.
>> 
> 
> Yes, me either. We never can find a fixed reference point.  If we try, it will change, and pouf, all gone. Suddenly something we both thought was, and treated as if it was ever lasting - wasn't.    
> 
>>>> 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...
>>> 
>>> I do, DQ.
>>> 
>> 
>> Okay. But the RMP quote stated "process of defining DQ" not DQ. I am not so sure. Consciousness can be identified as different experiences, so it may be a matter of semantics.
>> 
> Yeah, it's a matter of semantics.  
> 
>>> I define static patterns of value as every thing.
>> 
>> Okay, but that is not to define them at all. I prefer to define static quality in a way that points to the understanding of the relativity of all patterns. From the everything-is-connected-to-everything, flows a spontaneous joy and compassion.
> 
> I sometimes get the same sort of joy and compassion when I think about how quality is fundamental rather than cold, hard 'truths'.

I agree.


> There is a popular pseudo-scientific movement at the moment which perhaps you're familiar with.. It attempts to reconcile quantum physics with questions of identity. A key movie of the movement is 'What the bleep do we know!?' Have you seen it?   The problem with this type of thinking is that it argues that 'we're all connected' physically, and then that must mean our subjective identities and who we are must be 'connected' as well. This opens the flood gates to a whole range of Religious dogma claiming that this is scientific 'proof' of their beliefs.  But science has never been good at distinguishing from a good idea and a bad one. Just like it won't be any good at distinguishing between good religious dogma from bad.

I saw the movie a long while ago.  It did not have the impact of ZAMM & Quality. :-).   While science may not be presently ready to distinguish between a good and bad idea, the quantum perspective will transform the subject-object world view.  There are scientists who cannot help but consider the 'philosophical' implications of relativity.  

> Quality solves all this mess and says that a good idea is one which makes things better.   If some such a person makes a claim that this validates their religious dogma we can look at it and see how much harmony it has with what we already know.  If it doesn't explain our experience very well, or it doesn't help us to live a better life because of this explanation, then it's not a good idea..  

Better?  Too often it is my ego that wants to determine what is better from MY point-of-view.  I find if I can remember that experience is relative, I am more likely not to cause suffering.  But my ego is a hard nut to crack. - On some other level it is all good.  I think of this quote:

"To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of value it is without choice.  But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free." 


>>> I have a feeling that this is why you hold back with your opinions on others writing? You're scared of being accused of 'reinterpreting the MOQ'? If so, that's rather sad. Don't hold back in offering your actual opinion on things Marsha! It's not worth selling out who you are to a philosophical discussion board!  
>>> 
>>> If you don't agree with the MOQ on something, then just say so rather than repeat it so as to avoid getting in trouble…  
>> 
>> Your feelings are not mine. - I understand the MoQ (Quality(DQ/sq)) to be an ever-changing process. I know of no MoQ fixed-point on which to make such a judgement. See above. And then there is  
>> 
>> All conditioned dharmas (patterns)
>> Are like dreams, illusions, bubbles, shadows,  
>> Like dew drops and a lightning flash.  
>> Contemplate them thus.
>> 
> 
> Yes, nothing is truly fixed fundamentally. I agree.  
> 
>> 
>>> Ahh I see, so that's why you say that.. I don't deny that individuals are different from one another, but there are no truly 'independent' people as you seem to imply because people don't 'implement change'.  
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I have never thought that there exist independent people; the individual, or "self" is constant change.
> 
> I agree. It is constant change. Wait, how do we even distinguish between these different words we are speaking now if things are constant change?  

How do you?   You use "these conventional words" for their convenience until better words come along.  


> Am I attached to these words?

Are you?  

> I must be treating them as fixed otherwise they would appear to me as a whole mumbojumbo stream of letters.  

If you are too static with the meaning of words (especially to your own convenience) you will create your own form of misunderstanding, because language evolves and has meaning relative to other words in the particular context.   


> What happens when they are no longer used? Will I suffer? What do you think Marsha?

I cannot relate to these questions.  


>>> Any change for the better is a result of DQ and not the static patterns of that person as static patterns cannot contain DQ.. As I said above - a unique individual is just a unique collection of patterns from the past. There are many people who share many values however so the patterns aren't unique to just one individual but a particular collection of patterns is…  
>> 
>> 
>> My definition of the individual or self is as a flow of ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent, impermanent and conceptualized static patterns of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual value in the infinite field of Dynamic Quality.
> 
> Once again, this is why we're having this discussion, because I disagree with this statement and want to talk to you about it.  

Maybe you should give some reason for you disagreement, especially since you have agreed their is no fixed-point.  If not conditionally co-dependent on causes, conditions and preferences, than what?  Fixed?  Independent?  


> Others on this forum have given up on you.  They claim that you're a narcissist.  Repeating the very thing we're discussing back to me, irrespective of the fact that it's this very phrase which is in question, is proving their case more than disproving it.  If there is something wrong with my comment to which you have replied please tell me. If this means you no longer want to chat about the MOQ then you're free to do that too..  

Am I suppose to be intimidated by what "they" say?  The pot may forever call the kettle black, but that means nothing to me. 


> -David.


Marsha.