[MD] Truth and Relativity 2.0

[118]

Hi David,
Thank you for your response.  I, in turn, agree with most of what you present.

On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 5:27 AM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 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..

No, I would not say it means that it is not a good idea (too many
negatives there :-)).  For in fact as we look at the world from our
singular view we can pronounce such a thing good.  My purpose was to
bring to light what static quality can be seen as, and what it has
perhaps done to the human spirit in its usurping of "what is".  I
think you make the same point.

If we take static quality as a perspective, it is hollow and without
much meaning.  The meaning comes from what lies below the static.
Perhaps this is a Mystic reality, that can be a topic for another
post, maybe.  I have tried to communicate my understanding of the
mystic through the years here.  Basically, we are all mystic.  Our
views become non-mystical when we prostrate ourselves to the words and
concepts we are using, rather than see words as tools.  By paying
attention to the moment, I have found that most of my day exists in
mystical appreciation.  I can only assume that it is the same for
others.  For how often do we proceed with static representations of
everything that we are participating in through the day?  The mystic
is therefore not foreign to any of us.  We simply hide it by
consciously separating ourselves from what we are.

As you say, the mystic language cannot have subjects and objects "as
it is happening", since it lies in a realm outside of objectivity.
Even trying to explain it can be difficult, and there are many better
at this than I.

 Previously from David:>
>> > 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?
>> >Mark:
>> 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.

You are correct from an objective point of view.  But from a
subjective point of view an encyclopedia can bring in all sorts of
distinct worlds and feelings even if such things are not explicitly
written.  This is the marvel of the human imagination.  It can take
"what is" and create things that "aren't yet".  This is all I mean by
my encyclopedia comment.  Nothing more than that.  I addresses the
underlying DQ which keeps the encyclopedia current.  I suppose even
Wiki would be considered an encyclopedia in this case although it
pretends to represent more than it is.
>> >
>>
>> Mark previously:
>> > > OK, I think that is correct by my view. Science opperates in the same
>> > > way, always has. Science is a progressive metaphysics.
>> > >
>> >David:
>> > 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.
>> >
>Mark:
>> ...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 agree.  It is more dynamic than the SO we create.  It is not looking
at the objects or subjects by themselves, but seeing them in a
relationship sort of way.  A tree is a tree, but it is obviously much
more than that.  It can be a better tree.  In this way we get away
from the relative comparison of trees, which treats the trees as
"real" things rather than representations.  For in truth, there is
nothing to compare.
>> >
>>Mark:
>> 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.

OK, I am fine with that.  I will drop the "truth stuff" since it will
only confuse the issue.  Our static truths come from somewhere for us
to be able to put the dots together.  It is that "somewhere" that I am
referring to.  I will try to be consistent in naming it DQ.  The
reason I called it Truth is that truths come from it.  But all this
capital letter nonsense only leads to semantics, and I do not find
Wittgenstein's conclusions to be very expansive.
>
>>
> 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.

Yup.  From our perspective we have always existed as well.  "Always"
is all that we know from the moment of birth.  There was nothing
before that, so from a strictly subjective point of view it did not
exist.  Of course through sq we come to understand that there was
indeed something before our birth.  Through the art of sequencing
memories, we can extrapolate to a place that existed before our
memories.  However, this takes our lives into the abstract, and direct
empiricism is left behind for an intuitive synthesis.

>> > 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.

Yes, from a static quality perspective.  But that is not our
perspective.  We create static quality therefore the perspective is
from the place where such creation takes place.  This can be said to
be before the static quality world.  When a city is built, we do not
hold that everything must be viewed from "the city" perspective.  We
understand that the city is static, and that it was humans that
created it.  The city does not create the people inside of it.  This
is just an analogy of course, nothing more.

Mark:
>> 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..

Yes, we are representing something.  An equation for a photon or a
bridge is not the photon or bridge.  Because we make an equation for
such a thing does not mean we are making something out of it.  We are
representing what it is in sq terminology.  If we say that everything
is patterns, that does not mean that everything "really is" patterns.
It is a form of representation, taken for what it is worth.  If we say
that matter is patterns of molecules, we really have not said much.
If such representation is useful, which it is for those enamoured with
modern science, then OK.  But this does not point to the nature of
matter.  It is just another way to represent it.  Deconstruction
deconstructs, but does not provide a synthesis.  Deconstruction is
used if we want to make utility of some aspect, such as with
technology.  It is deviding  into the ever smaller or simpler.  I am
not sure how useful it is to simplify a river into patterns of water.
However, it is a good start for someone who has just started on this
path for understanding.  Every novice goes there to begin with.

As I understand it, I grasp DQ each and every day.  This is done prior
to the conceptual understanding the we create as representation.  As
you have said, we can say that Dynamic Quality isn't anything.  The
same can be said for a tree, that is then represented by "tree".  What
we do is create something through representation.  We package our
relationship with what is so as to speak about it, these are just
little exchange parcels, not DQ.  Any gift represents more than the
gift; such a gift is a symbol.  Words and concepts are symbols in the
same way.  So, there is not need to get into this circular idea that
there is no way out of sq.  In effect, there is no way into sq.  It is
always held at a distance.  If we live by sq (are bewitched and
immersed in it without realizing what it is), then we are robots
following instructions.  This is a form of "sleep" that many caution
against.
>
>> 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.

Well, I learn as I respond.  It takes a discussion for me to figure
out how to express what lies beneath the representation I am
conveying, and your prodding lights up areas in my brain (an analogy).
 Words are just the final format of thoughts that I know I have, but
cannot ever fully grasp.  So I appreciate your time spent in this
discussion.  I take what you say and see what I can find deep within.
>
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