[MD] Truth and Relativity 2.0

[David Harding]

Hi Mark,
> It seems as though we are progressing towards blending our views. This
> can come about through discussion so long as we do not get stuck in
> camps of minutia. I believe we have the same intention so I continue
> this in good faith. Since we both know where we have got so far, I am
> deleting some of the history below, and moving forward.
> 
I agree with the minutia comment. So in the same spirit I'm going to summarise where I think the misunderstanding is at the start here and I've removed many of the comments which relate to this main misunderstanding...

Ultimately, I actually agree with you on all of your comments which I removed.  Static patterns didn't exist before we read about them in Lila - just as the laws of gravity didn't exist before Newton created them, just as my arms before me didn't exist before I thought about them.  This is what you say and I agree. It is the perspective of a Mystic. Our concepts are created by us. Everything is ultimately DQ.

But, I say, does that mean it isn't a good *idea* to think they existed before we thought of them? I don't think that it is. Yes ultimately our ideas create our world but our ideas rely on our understanding that the static quality which they represent existed before we thought of them. That's what static quality is. It's fixed, ever lasting, unchanging.  This is the perspective of static quality.  So while ultimately static quality doesn't exist until it's created, once it is created it's a good idea to treat it as such otherwise it is hollow static meaninglessness. It becomes the language of a Mystic..

> What I mean by nothing to unravel is this: Unraveling implies that
> something already exists to be unraveled. If anything we are
> "raveling" things. That is we are "creating a ravel". This is what
> the formation of concepts does. It creates bundles where none
> existed before. Art is the creation of something new, not the
> exposition of something old. So yes, we are partaking in creation,
> not in unravelling a piece of art that already exists.
> 
> 

Yeah I agree.
 
> > I think that quality is fundamental, not concepts. While all we can talk about is concepts how did the concepts get here? These concepts were selected based on how good they are.  It is the quality which the concepts describe that is fundamental.  What about that quality? What is it exactly? The MOQ would say that we can break this quality into two. sq and DQ. sq we can talk about. sq is every thing. sq is every thing in an encyclopaedia. Is gravity in an encyclopaedia?
> > 
> 
> 
> These concepts were not selected from somewhere, they were created,
> but I think that is what you mean. We create the concepts which best
> represent what we are intuitively appreciating at the time. The
> quality that the concepts describe can also be said to be "not
> anything" if I understand your use of the term. SQ is not everything,
> it is just a representation of what we want to talk about. We create
> concepts from the "everything" you are bringing in. Sure, we can say
> that sq is every thing in an encyclopedia provided we are speaking of
> a static encyclopedia. But new things are entered into it all the
> time aren't they. Therefore there is more to an encyclopedia then
> what is in it.
> 
> 

I understand what you're saying. But I disagree. There isn't any more to an encyclopaedia than what's in it. An encylopedia is a static thing. If you say 'it's just going to change anyway', then you are treating an encyclopaedia as something it is not.  An encyclopaedia will not change unless there is Dynamic Quality which is in no encylopedia. An encyclopaedia is not Dynamic Quality + static quality.  It is static quality.  It is something which can be defined.  It is static.
> > 
> 
> Mark previously:
> > > OK, I think that is correct by my view. Science opperates in the same
> > > way, always has. Science is a progressive metaphysics.
> > > 
> > 
> > Yes, science is open in this same way; however it's foundations like SOM or the scientific method are not open in this way.  Within the MOQ, even its foundations are open to being replaced by something better.
> > 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what you mean by its foundations. Every time you put
> your hand in the shower to see if it is warm yet, IS the Scientific
> Method. If this is a closed method, then you may be referring to
> "open in this way" in some other way. The foundation of science are
> to question and provide answers in the same way you check the water
> temperature of a shower. If the shower water is the right
> temperature, then the investigation stops, until the next shower.
> This is a foundation for our experiential existence. Of course
> experience is always open by nature.
> 
> So the scientific method is no different from what you do every day.
> It can ge more complex of course while you check the shower others
> have invented the locomotive engine.
> 
> 

:-) Subject Object Metaphysics has a very distinct way of going about things and thus a very distinct definition. The question it starts with is:

"Is it a subject or is it an object?"

This first question is not open to quality or something better.

Similarly, the Scientific Method starts out with a hypothesis has a method and then a conclusion.  Nowhere in this foundation is there a question of values or what is better. 

The first question of the MOQ is:

"Is it better?"

This is obviously open to something better.

This is what I mean by the foundations being open to something better.
> > 
> 
> I am distinguishing between the truth of concepts, and the truth to
> which the concepts point. Of course this second truth can "nothing at
> all" as you say. It is outside of the conceptual. Therefore it
> cannot be "something". The concepts we form are not Truth, they are
> concepts.
> 
> 

I wish I saw differently as it would mean that we could agree but I still disagree.  Using truth in this way seems to conflate the word 'truth' with DQ.  I think truth has a very distinct, intellectual definition. DQ does not.
 
> Well if I surprise you by asking for clarification, I suppose it is a
> good surprise. I am simply trying to understand what you are
> presenting. You do not have to respond to my question, but that would
> not be in the spirit of this discussion.
> 
> As I understand it you are proclaiming that some truths are not good
> because they are not good. Fair enough.
> 
> I am not talking about a cultural perspective, in fact I am trying to
> distinguish the "cultural perspective" from the personal relationship.
> So, I ask that we move away from the cultural perspective as a means
> to proclaim that there is no such thing as Good or Truth. This is the
> trap I seek to present, and the means for getting out of it if one
> falls into it. This is the trap of relativism. I think that we agree
> on that.
> 
> 

Yes we do.
 
> > 
> 
> > I think the confusion here is the term "highest intellectual pattern". This term seems to suggest some sort of ranking.  If something is ranked, then where does the first thing come from? We've actually had this discussion before about sq patterns in general. As I said then, I don't think that you need more than one quality to 'rank' it.  If there is one, then that's the best pattern.
> > 
> 
> 
> OK, I understand you. When you present the word "highest" you are
> pointing towards usefulness. As there is no ranking I am fully on
> your side for this one. We do not select amongst intellectual
> patterns to find the highest one. We can agree on this. "Best" is
> not a relative term in this case.
> 
> 

Indeed. 
> No, I do not argue that everything is a concept. Concepts are
> concepts, nothing more. All our minds do is interpret the world. If
> we created the world, we would be living in a world without DQ. So If
> you are in agreement with me there, there is no disagreement. The
> idea of levels is static quality. The idea of levels does not exist
> outside of static quality. What exists outside of static quality is
> not anything as you say. We cannot even say that it is "not this, not
> that", because that is a concept in itself. We do not live in
> concepts, we create them.
> 
> 

Yes, we create concepts. They are static and we create these concepts and thus the world we talk about. 
> How can something that we do that we do not conceptualize be sq? This
> does not make sense to me. I am speaking of the traveling before
> conceptualizing. The traveling that occurs in every moment. This
> happens before we have time to conceptualize. We do not
> preconceputalize what is coing to happen each and every moment. At
> that point it is still DQ. I do not know how to make this any
> clearer. Perhaps you reply will allow me.
> 
> 

Yes.  Ultimately you're right.  Our ideas create our travelling.  But as I say - Is it a good idea to say that the ideas which we create about our travelling do not relate to the walking, swimming, and flying we do on our travels? I don't think that it is.
 
> > Well this is why we're having this discussion.. To bring harmony to our different understandings. I can only live with with it when there is such harmony. Right now I don't think there's such harmony, but I think it's getting better :-)
> > 
> 
> 
> I agree, but if you consider the moment before conceptualization to be
> sq, it seems to me you are bringing sq into the realms of DQ. I like
> to keep DQ and sq separate. SQ is after it is conceptualized. You
> indicate that it is before. Do this is a fundamental difference that
> is one of definitions. Perhaps there is harmony there, give it a try.
> How is it that sq exists in the pre-intellectual if that is what you
> mean. I can be convnced.
> > 
> 
> <big snip>
> 
I like to keep sq and DQ separate as well. I think this is what our whole conversation seems to be about.  How to best keep them as separate.  Ultimately, I think you're right, sq is after the conceptualised. *But*, once that sq appears, we can only treat static quality as such. As if it is fixed and has always been there and will last forever.  We call it static patterns of value. A pattern is something which lasts forever.  This is how our intellectual minds work.  So from a sq perspective, it has always existed and always will exist.
> > Well as you can probably guess I guess I will criticise.. I think it sullies the clean distinction between DQ and sq. You keep saying that you know of a 'DQ tree' or a 'DQ interaction' but DQ cannot be captured into concepts like this.  DQ is before concepts.  DQ isn't anything. Even if your intentions are pure, these words of yours of a 'DQ tree' can be taken very easily by someone else and turned into sq. If I say, "oh that's just the 'DQ tree' over there" or "oh that's just someone's 'DQ intentions'". Then I think this really misses the mark. We end up just talking about sq and losing sight of what DQ is.  DQ isn't anything.
> > 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't . It simply points to a whole world that exist before
> conceptualization. Such a world is not any thing until we
> conceptualize it. All of this is DQ, it cannot be otherwise, imo.
> This is a very clear distinction. One is conceptual the other is not.
> Certainly the thing we form a concept of such as tree must exist
> before we form a concept of it. But as far as our intellect is
> concerned it is not anything. Before it has a concept, that is, it is
> represented with the brain, surely it must exist. If it were sq at
> that point that would sully the water, wouldn't it? Isn't this the
> whole point of the pre-intellectual?
> 
> 

As I'll keep saying. Ultimately I agree, but from a static quality perspective it always has and always will exist.  It is a static quality pattern.
> I still do not understand how you view sq. In my simple understanding
> of what you are presenting, it seems to be everything and therefore
> leaves DQ out of the metaphysics. DQ becomes sq when we interpret it
> and form an image. Surely there is a time before that. I think this
> need more discussion when you find the time.
> 
> 

There is a time before that Mark. But even calling it a 'time before that' makes some thing out of nothing and is immediately sq. You cannot grasp DQ in this way. You cannot outsmart DQ. You cannot say that it is before the conceptual. There is plenty of things which are before the conceptual which aren't DQ. There's inorganic, biological and social levels. There's even the static concept 'pre conceptual'.  There's even the concept Dynamic Quality.  None of these things are actually Dynamic Quality. Dynamic Quality isn't anything.  Including that definition right there..

> Hope you are enjoying your weekend.
I hope that you enjoyed yours too Mark.  I really enjoy talking to you about the MOQ. I like how you summarise what I say. You might think I'm being facetious but I really think you do it well.

-David