[MD] Truth and Relativity 2.0

[118]

Hi David,

On 2/8/12, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 am fine with leaving DQ undefined so long as we can talk abou it.  I
think we all know that what we are producing are opinions on our
personal interpretations of what DQ feels like.  Of course the
conceptual is just the conceptual.  That goes without saying.
>
> 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.” "

I think that Pirsig must be careful here, for that statement can be
interpreted in many ways.  I am not sure if Pirsig is an expert on
Vedic knowledge, but I would doubt it since that takes many many years
of training.  "not this, not that" is of course a translation of the
Neti Neti, which is actually NOT "not this not that".  I am sure you
know this so this statement is for others who become confused by this.
>

>> 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.

David, as you know, I am a scientist, have been one for over 30 years.
 I am fully aware of the value side of science as are all scientists.
It is the layperson who does not understand this.  They
unconditionally accept what scientists say as if they are all
knowledgeable and value free.  Science is a messy subject just like
metaphysics.  What comes out of science is the result of heated
exchanges between scientists, followed by a conditional acceptance of
a certain view.  This view is always changing since science is very
dynamic.

Raw data is raw data.  It has no value.  It is the interpretation of
such data which brings in value.  It can be said that the data
produced is a function of the method of interrogation.  As such, data
reflects the answer which is trying to be established whether it be
for or against a certain theory.  So you correctly say that the
"unravelling" is value driven.  However, it is not unravelling at all,
it is structure building.  There is nothing to unravel.
>>
>>
> I don't like the term spirit. People are burned at stakes for the religious
> term.

Fair enough, do you have a better word?
>
>
> 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.

I believe that Pirsig would disagree with you on this one.  Gravity is
a man-made concept.  It does not really exist as such.  If you believe
it to be value, then it most certainly is, but that does not make such
a thing real.  Gravity has an accepted definition, but this too is
conceptual.  Again, I warn you against making these things more real
than they are.  This is what MoQ warns against too, imo.  Gravity
itself is as elusive as DQ, just read what Pirsig has to say on the
subject.
>
> 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..

I never said meaningless.  In fact there is great meaning to the
undefined.  I thought I made this clear.  Yes, it is a human ability
to be able to define.  In that way we can converse about things.
However, these definitions are not meant to replace, they are just
tools.  Of course there is more than just these minds of ours, but
those are from which we speak.  I can't imagine thinking like a plant,
can you?  However they have their own presence which is as valid as
ours.
>>
>
> 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..

OK, I think that is correct by my view.  Science opperates in the same
way, always has.  Science is a progressive metaphysics.
>
>> Mark previously
>> 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.

I am not quite sure why you say that.  Perhaps your interpretation
does not fit what I am trying to say.  We all know what truth is, and
it is not "any word on the planet".  I am speakin of "truth" which
occurs before we make any conceptual framework of it.  Bumping into a
tree in the dark of night is Truth.  Unless you want to say that such
a thing is simply an illusion.  If this is the case then it is you who
are making the concept of truth prior to conceptualization
meaningless.  There is truth within Quality, my friend.


>> 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.

No, David, I am not putting the conceptualized truth above Quality.  I
am putting Quality above such Truth.  From quality comes truth.  We
cannot even say that such a statement is true, but that it has
quality.
>
> 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.

Yes, of course.  I am not doing any subbordination at all.  Perhaps I
am not explaining myself well for you to come to that conclusion.  I
am looking at the merry-go-round from above, and got off that thing a
long time ago.  It is perhaps you who claim that quality comes before
truth as a form of truth that are caught in the merry-go-round.  Is
that possible?

I am not sure what you mean by Good.  Is the currently accepted truth
about death by the intelligencia good?  Is the fact that we become
anhilated and cannot return in another life time Good?  This is the
accepted truth in our day and age amongst the intellectuals, but in my
opinion it is far from good.  Please explain what you mean by Good, or
"high quality", because I do not think we see it in the same way.

>> 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...

Again you seem to miss the whole point of my rhetoric.  The
definitions is not the laugh.  It is only a definition.  The laugh
itself is undefinable, it is an occurrence.  There is no way to
suitably define it.  Again, I must warn you about thinking that the
definitions (sq) are the thing being defined (DQ).  If you do, you get
caught up living in an sq world.  MoQ is supposed to lead one out of
this mind-set that you seem to be promoting.  We are not stuck in an
sq world.  Please try to understand that. We live in a DQ world.
>>
>
> 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.

OK, let me take what you say here.  Is it true that each truth can be
ranked?  Where does this truth come from?  If Truth as intellectual
value is something that you find to be true, how do you go about the
ranking of this truth?  If what is true is the highest intellectual
pattern, then who's intellectual pattern do you choose?  You seem to
be sliding into the meaninglessness of relativism here, unless I
misunderstand what you are trying to say.
>
> 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?

No, the thing itself is NOT static quality.  The concept of the thing
is static quality.  Again, I must warn you of confusing the concept
with the thing it is representing.  A word is a word, nothing more.
Yes, a word is a form of sq, but it is only a word.  When we speak of
what we are doing that is static quality.  The doing itself without
any conceptualization is dynamic, pure DQ.  It is the intimate
connection between us and everything else.  It cannot be defined.
Definitions do not even approach what it is.  This is a very important
concept in MoQ.  Our simplification of things do not, even nearly,
represent what they are, they are just agreements.
>
>
> 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'.

Yes, I think you are correct with the Buddhist training.  This form of
training has been around for many years, long before Buddhism.  When
man transitioned from the wordless to the wordy, this was a definite
split.  As we grew, we became more enamoured with the words than what
they represented.  MoQ is trying to bring us back to the Quality of
things, rather than their man-made representations.

Yes, what comes from the whacking at that instant is pure DQ.  Once we
conceptualize them they are represented by sq.  This is the whole
purpose of trying to Whack somebody out of the sq dream.  If you state
that DQ is not this not that, you are not really saying it IS "not
this not that", you are pointing away from sq.  I am not capturing DQ
into sq, so don't believe such a thing.  Perhaps you are doing such
capturing.  I am outside of such a thing.  I am pointing to the nature
of sq.  Again, I guess I can't explain this well.
>>
>> 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.
>> >

No, they are not.  They are sq when I conceptualize them.  The travels
themselves have nothing to do with sq.  I am speaking of that which
lies before the concepualization.  It is the act of doing those things
that I am pointing towards.  Again I must warn you about confusing the
"representation" (sq) for the thing it is representing (DQ).
>>

>> 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.

Then we have different defintions of sq.  I can live with that.

>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...

If you want to be clear on "what [DQ] is and what it is not", I am all
for that.  However, you are going against your own maxim there of
undefinability.

Yes, DQ is not the representation of something, it is what is being
represented.  I am not stretching the definition of DQ by any means.
In fact I am not defining it at all except to say that "it is what is
being represented by sq".  It is what lies outside of sq.  This is the
fundamental DQ/SQ split that we agree on as necessary to build MoQ.

Everytime you bring DQ into a sentence you are defining it.  That is
the way words work.  We cannot use a word that has no meaning.
Meaning in conversation is brought about though an acceptance of what
we are referring to.  This acceptance is what creates definitions.
Every word in this post is defined otherwise I could not use them.
The undefinable yet agreed on nature of DQ IS a definition.  When
operating in an sq exchange, we cannot get away from that.  It would
be like trying to build a house without any building materials.


> 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.

I would have to emphatically say that it is not.  The sq being used
does not replace what it is being used to represent.  In fact it
cannot replace it.  It is this idea that it DOES replace it that MoQ
is trying to rally us against.  Just step outside the sq world for a
minute.  It is not hard.  Walk around and look at things without
naming or even recognizing them.  Just turn the sq part off.  This may
take practices, but it is extremely doable.  There are many many
techniques which have been thought of through the ages to do this.
The Western mentality has shut itself off to this "living in Quality".
 Let us not shut MoQ off to this through a bundleing technique.
>>
> 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.

Yes, when we define we are agreeing on things so that we can exchange
ideas.  This is a fundamental ability of being human, and is extremely
Grand.  Just look at how creative we can be.  We have developed such a
complex form of exchange that I am continually astonished by it.  We
can present pictures in words!

We get nothing wrong unless you think the act of creativity is wrong.
Far from it, we are doing things right.  Let us not confuse what is
for what we represent it to be, however.

>> 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?

Sq exists so that we can opperate in the social and intellectual
levels.  Simple as that.  I think it is wonderful.  For it to be
considered necessary it would depend what you mean.  It is what it is.
 It IS This, and IS That.
>
> 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.

I guess it would depend on what you mean by sq.  For me sq is a
conceptual framework.  It is what we create in our heads as the RESULT
of the interaction between that outside with that inside.  The
interaction itself is pure DQ.  Sq is a packaging of experiences for
export.  When one sees a tree, it is DQ until it is placed within a
framework which is meant to be used in a sequential or meaningful way.
 Once converted to sq it can be used for export either to relay this
to someone else, or to explain a decision (often to oneself).  The
actual appreciation of the tree happens before sq, and is explained
after.  The capability for making a decision is DQ which uses sq to
format the decision.  Jumping off a hot stove is a decision.  Later we
"sq' the whole thing to explain what we did and why.  "Why" is a
request for sq as is any question.  Once an answer is received and
incorporated into the brain, it can be used in a DQ fashion.  I cannot
think when the last time I asked Why I must stop at a red light.
Perhaps it was that fender bender in the '80s.

In MoQ we must be able to distinguish between sq and DQ in order to
have a meaningful conversation.  So I present my paragraph above for
your review and comments or criticisms.  It is somewhat half-baked.

Just so that you know, David, much of the post above was for the
uninitiated or confused which I do not think you are a member of.  The
repetition of some concepts is for them.  I certainly learn a lot by
reading you opinions.

Cheers,
Mark
>
> 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
>