[MD] Truth and Relativity 2.0

[David Harding]

Hi Mark,
> Hey David,
> Yeah, I am a busy-body :-)
>  
> I will try to explain myself better since it seems I have not so far.
> I will do this in response to your well put disagreements below.
>  
I think you explain yourself well.  After reading my writing below however, you may get frustrated because I always insist on DQ not being defined.   It's easy to get stuck on some such and such an analogy of DQ and it's easy to forget that this analogy isn't DQ.  It's a matter of degree, how much are you willing to say about DQ? Personally, I want to say barely anything.  We all know what DQ is and it's so easy to forget that these analogies which we use for DQ are just that, analogies and thus not DQ.  
  
I think that's why Pirsig says..

"The best answer to the question, “What is Dynamic Quality?” is the ancient Vedic one—“Not this, not that.” "

> > You sure do talk to me a whole lot when I'm not talking to you :-) Regardless, there are things I disagree with here.
> > David:
> > First and foremost, I'll restate how I see the difference between SOM and the MOQ. Within SOM everything is relative and there is no way we can say whether anything is better than anything else.  Moreover, we don't really have free will as A causes B and thus everything is determined.
> >  
>  
>  
> Mark
> The point is, that we do say things are better all the time. From an
> analytical point of view, one that requires measurements, sure we
> cannot say whether anything is better. This is because "betterness"
> cannot be defined in such terms, unless we agree on the criteria we
> are referring to. However, we are stuck with feeling some things are
> better than others whether it follows some sq logic or not.
>  
>  

We can actually talk about values in science and measurement.  Have you read Pirsig's SODV? There he recommends that scientists stop pretending that science is 'value free'.  All they deal with is values.  It's the thing which gives their results meaning.   Values are at the core of all raw data and it's these values which scientists try to unravel to give their data meaning.    It truly is better to say that B values precondition A rather than A causes B.
>  
> From my readings of Lila, Pirsig states that everything has free will.
> I think this is the only way in which MoQ will work. From this, it
> seems, is how he arrives at a Moral universe, guided by Quality. A
> chooses to cause B, we are just not tuned in to realize that. Much of
> this distraction from accepting free will comes from our education,
> and is certainly not the only way to see things. I can point to
> American Indian tribes that ascribe a spirit to everything. By
> definition, a spirit is not governed by cause and effect since it is
> not attached to the material.
>  
I don't like the term spirit. People are burned at stakes for the religious term.
  
>  
> We could define DQ as a reference by which our actions are completely
> undetermined and free, and then explore where that takes us. This is
> what I think metaphysics is all about. There is nothing safe or
> absolute about metaphysics as you state by its always changng. This
> does not necessarily mean we relegate such a thing to sq. We speak of
> "gravity", but we can not see it, all we can see are its effects. We
> define gravity in terms of its effects, rather than its true nature.
>  
>  

I disagree. Gravity is very clearly the value of my feet to this earth.  DQ isn't something which has direct, obvious, predictable results like that.  DQ isn't anything, gravity very much has its own definition and is very predictable.
  
> This is the same as DQ. We cannot approach DQ, but we can point to
> its presence. If we could not, then it is merely a phantom which does
> not contribute at all to our lives. I think that it does.
>  
>  

Just because something cannot be defined in no way makes it phantom and meaningless.  I know our minds would like to define it.  Our minds are built to deal with definable things. But there is more than just these minds of ours..
> > David
> > The MOQ solves all this. Quality is fundamental so we can say whether something is better than something else. Moreover in regards to static quality, yes our actions are completely determined, but in regards to DQ our actions are completely undetermined and 'free'.  It is important to keep DQ undefined as it gives the MOQ its strength.  All things going well the MOQ as sq will be replaced by something better. As far as I know this is the first ever philosophical system to say so!
> >  
>  
>  
> Mark
> Yes, I think that Quality is much more fundamental than that. Saying
> that something is better is but one expression of Quality. I am not
> sure about the determined part. There is no way to prove that our
> actions are completely determined, and there is no way to access
> Free-will since it is also undefinable. The fact that we believe in
> free will is proof enough for me that it exists. We would behave
> completely differently from a personal level if it did not. We would
> not even be thinking about it. We think about it, because as you say,
> this is the way in which we present DQ as a concept. DQ can present
> itself as free will. Notice I am not saying that DQ IS free will, it
> is not even close.
>  
> Everything is replaced in sq, but that does not mean to me that the
> spirit of DQ does not live on. This does not mean that sq does not
> depict DQ as it passes through. I am not sure what "strength" you are
> referring to. What I consider strength would be acceptance by others
> as a useful way in which to see the world. If we tell them that we
> cannot talk about DQ, I would find this to be a weakness. If you mean
> strength in terms of protection from argument, then the biggest
> strength would be to not talk about DQ at all. Metaphysics is only as
> strong as the agreement that it is blessed with.
>  
>  


The strength I am referring to is that unlike any other Metaphysics or indeed philosophical system, it opens itself up to being better than it currently is.  It is built right into the foundation of the Metaphysics. That is very unique and I think a strength..
  
> >  
>  
> Mark Previously
> > > 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.
> > >  
> >  
>  
> David
> > Truth is sq. It is a static representation of reality as per a dictionary definition.
>  
>  
> Mark
> I am not talking about truth in its sq apparition. I am speaking of
> what is required to create the static truth. This truth is not a
> static representation, it happens before the static representation.
> It happens in DQ. What we later formulate are truths. At least that
> is my interpretation of the impact of DQ.
>  
>  


The way you are using the term truth here we could replace with any word on the planet. DQ is the source of every thing. But to say that because it is the source of everything then that means it is everything - destroys the important first division of the MOQ.  
> > > Mark previously
> > > 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.
> > >  
> >  
> > David
> > Yes, and what is wrong with this implication? Some things are better than others right? Being that truths are static quality, they can be ranked like qualities.  Some truths are better than others.
> >  
>  
>  
> Mark
> David, the point I am trying to make is, that to claim that "some
> truths are better than others" is a truth in itself. To then insist
> that this "truth about some things being better than others" is a
> better truth is simply redundant. I can say that apples are better
> than oranges because apples are better than oranges. But how do you
> explain to someone that this is because of an apple being better?
> This is what I mean about being careful not to go in circles. We
> cannot support a statement with the statement itself. We do not go in
> circles if we suggest that the truth itself has underlying DQ.
>  
> I am still not sure if I am being clear, but that is the best I can do
> at this point.
>  
>  

You are being very clear. But I disagree. What you seem to be inadvertently doing is placing truth before the quality of something.

Truths are only true in so far as they are good.  You keep getting caught in this circle because you're subordinating every good truth once again back to a truth.  This isn't necessary.  We only use truths if they are good for us to use them.  This is what I mean by bringing quality into things also brings in common sense.  You needn't get caught up in this merry-go-round of truths. Put the quality of something first Mark, things are much clearer this way.

> Mark previously
> > > 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.
> > >  
> >  
> > David
> > Nowhere have I claimed that truth is DQ?  DQ is undefined quality.  Truth on the other hand can be defined.  It is intellectual patterns of value.
> >  
>  
>  
> Mark
> No, I have. The way you use the word Truth, it is not DQ, I agree
> with that, as I tried to explain above. I am not sure if you want to
> define DQ as undefined Quality. There are many things in Quality that
> are undefined, but many of them are sq. Definitions are only part of
> what makes up sq. We can share undefined things like a laugh. In
> order to share, such things must be objectified.
>  
>  

A laugh being something which exists in a dictionary is something which can be defined.  I'll repeat again, all things which can be defined are in a dictionary. DQ is undefined betterness...
>  
> How would you define Truth? I suppose we could say that truth is
> something that is true. Or we could say that truth is the best we can
> do at a certain time. But what does that "best" mean.
>  
>  

I have to stop here and just be surprised that you asked this question. Really Mark? You don't know what best is?  
> Or we could
> say that truth is an agreement between people as to what works, but
> here we are talking about perspective and not truth. Truth is not a
> convenience, or a tool we use. Truth is different from "a truth"
> don't you think? Of course this subject has been discussed forever by
> philosophers, so I don't want to get into it, except to say that I do
> not think it is useful to present truth as some kind of phenomenon
> that is described by sociologists. They pretend to observe from afar,
> what they themselves are.
>  
>  

I think rather than 'the truth' there is many. Each of them can be ranked based on how good they are.  Truth is intellectual value.  What is true is what is the highest intellectual pattern.

> Mark previously
> > > 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.
> > >  
> >  
> > David
> > Agreement being something that can be defined is static not dynamic.
> >  
>  
>  
> Mark
> Yes, certainly we can give it a definition, but the definition is not
> the actual thing, is it? The definition is a concept nothing more.
> We are creating an sq so that we can converse about it, but Agreement
> itself has nothing to do with the definition.
>  
>  

I think Agreement itself does have a lot to do with the definition or else we wouldn't know what each other was talking about.   
> It is an event, not
> some static concept.  
>  
>  

Yes, it is social quality, the concept itself is intellectual quality.  
  
> While it is happening it is completely dynamic.
> Only in hindsight do we then write it down to make it static. Most of
> what we do is before the static reflection. I think it is important
> to distinguish between what we present as static quality, and the
> thing itself. We have no words for the actually doing, all we have
> are shadows on the wall of such doing. This is why simple questions
> in Buddhist training are answered with actions, and not words. All my
> opinion, of course.
>  
>  


The thing itself is the static quality. 'Doing something' could be biological, social or intellectual quality. It depends on what it is that your doing but these things are all static quality.  We do have words for the actual doing.  Running, Reading, Thinking, these are all doing words no?  

Questions in Buddhist training are answered with actions to point out that there is more than just these static things. People get so caught up in their thoughts that they forget this reality right here in front of them..  But the actions which follow the simple questions, are they DQ? Let's say someone asks whether a dog has a buddha nature and he gets a whack on the head. Is the whacking DQ? I don't think that DQ can be captured into sq like this. This is why it's best to say that DQ is 'Not this, not that'.
> Mark previously
> > > 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.
> > >  
> >  
> > David
> > I agree.  But I don't think that simply pretending some such a static quality is dynamic solves the issue.  Any new idea which anyone presents is more static quality.  We're surrounded by static quality on this discussion board and we can't get away from it.  We can talk about DQ through analogies but those analogies themselves are still yet more static quality.  How do we get out Mark? We're trapped!
> >  
>  
>  
> Mark
> No I do not think we are not trapped. I may seem we are trapped if we
> mistake the shadow on the wall (sq) for what is actually throwing the
> shadow. The sq we create is not the real thing, it is an sq
> representation. It is a representation of something that is not
> static. By talking about it we do not make what we are talking about
> sq. If I write a book about my travels, those travels are not sq, the
> book is. I think there is a big difference between a representation
> and the real thing. So long as we acknowledge that we are delivering
> sound bites which represents something else, I don't think we can get
> trapped.
>  
>  

 Your travels are still sq.  The concept of your travels represents other sq things which you did while you were on your travels.
> >  
>  
> David
> > Weirdly, I think the way out is through that circle of 'conceptual understandings'.  The real way to free oneself from static quality is to go over and over and over it.  To perfect it. And once it is perfected, it no longer grates on our conscience and is gone. Thinking about Lila over and over and over again has helped free myself to some extent from the book and the MOQ.  It is like a Zen Koan. If you think about something long enough, you end up becoming that thing, and it's gone!  If people are presenting Pirsig as dogma then I don't see any trouble with that. So long as they are thinking about it when they repeat it and don't forget that it is there to represent DQ.
>  
>  
> Mark
> Yes I agree with that. I think that by practicing we bring something
> objective into the subjective. It becomes part of us so that we do
> not keep it at arms length. When I am driving a car and not thinking
> about it, it really is part of me, at least as much as my nose is when
> I use it to smell.
>  
> I also have not problem with people using Pirsig as dogma to make
> themselves understand what he is presenting. What he is presenting is
> very very real. What I do not like is the way some prove a point by
> presenting a quote from a Pirsig book. This to me is like reading
> scriptures from the bible to "prove" we are all sinners. It just does
> not work for me, I guess I have run up against too many people like
> that. I prefer to be convinced with some rhetoric than by some book
> that I have read countless times.
>  
>  

Fair enough.
> > I know that you like this analogy however it is more sq to me..  We've had this discussion before and using DQ in your mind as some static thing is dealing not with DQ but with sq!
> >  
>  
>  
> I can claim that it is NOT sq. I do not see why you would say it is.
> Would you consider the manner in which you look out before
> conceptualizing to be sq? I think you are confusing what I am
> presenting with the words I am presenting it with. I can say that I
> am in the presence of DQ all the time, this is why I like what Pirsig
> wrote. If you want to believe it is sq, that is fine by me, but it is
> not.
>  
>  


Yes, I would consider 'the manner in which you look out before conceptualising' to be sq.  Because you have just described to me some static thing, and this is not DQ. By saying that we are 'present' with DQ all the time you seem to be suggesting that I don't think that DQ exists.  Of course DQ exists.  I think we need to be clear about what it is and what it isn't. DQ is not some static quality thing. If we stretch our definition of DQ too much beyond that, then it kills DQ. Strangles DQ in sq definitions.. This is why I argue to leave DQ undefined.  We all know what it is. Let's just leave it at that...
> > Quality can be 'before the individual'. The quality which is before the individual is DQ, the individual is sq.
> >  
>  
>  
> I guess it would depend what you mean by individual. If we are
> speaking of the concept of individual then I would agree. But what if
> we are referring to the individual that is not a concept, that is, the
> individual that the concept is depicting? I would say that such
> individual is not sq. Again, I think it is important not to confuse
> the concept with the thing it is representing.
>  
>  


The individual that the concept is depicting is sq. There is more to static quality that just intellectual quality.  There are four levels of static quality.  
>  
> > > We are DQ as we
> > > create experiences, we are not subjected to experiences.
> > >  
> >  
> >  
> > I would be careful here.  Suggesting there is a 'We' always along with DQ implies that DQ is some thing.  DQ isn't anything.  We, on the other hand, is sq.
>  
> Yes, I agree, DQ is not an object, I am sorry if I gave that
> impression. I am referring to being DQ that is not the object. When
> you say, "we" that concept is sq, but that does not mean that we are
> the concept. I keep saying this because I think it is important, and
> Pirsig talks about this quite a lot too.
>  
>  

Yes, I agree, fundamentally we can't define anything. Things change and thus we always get it wrong.  But we're alive and picking up bar ladies and discussing Metaphysics on a discussion board is a part of life.
> > David
> > I do not see how relegating our appreciation of existence to sq, makes sq 'relative?   If I appreciate some such a static quality that means I regard it highly.  Regarding something highly like that is a sq act..
> >  
>  
>  
> Mark
> It makes it relative only in terms of measuring it against something
> else. This whole premise of having to relate something to something
> else is something I do not find instructive.  
>  
>  

I do too. But is that necessary for sq to exist?
  
> We pretend to be outside
> of ourselves, which we can never do. We create every experience we
> have, that is the way the body works. To suddenly pretend to be
> objective about something is just plain silly. But I can leave it at
> that since I used all my energy on the subject in my walk through the
> swamps with Marsha.
>  
> Existence is much much more than just the sq part of it, imo. We end
> up conceptualizing very little of our daily input.
>  
>  

Concepts are only a small part of sq I agree. But there are three other levels of sq which aren't concepts.  These three other levels aren't DQ as you seem to imply.  They are actually very static and definable things.
> > > The "creation of
> > > meaning" is DQ, (note that I do not state that "meaning is DQ"); It is
> > > about as dynamic as it gets.
> > >  
> >  
> > David
> > Yes, DQ is the source of all things including meaning. However when we say, such and such 'means' something, this is a sq statement and thus it is instantly not DQ.
> >  
>  
>  
> Yes, I am speaking of the creation, not the resulting meaning.
Creation being a concept which can be defined is static quality.  
  
> >  
> > In my view, quality solves all paradoxes and never ending circles of reason like this. As soon as quality is brought into the picture, so is common sense.
>  
> Yes, Quality does certainly provide me with a clearer view.
> Explaining it is another thing altogether.
>  
>  


I think you do good.  

-David.