[MD] Truth and Relativity 2.0

[David Harding]

Hi Mark, 

Perhaps I'm not being clear so I'll try to put what I was trying to say in another way.  Things are made easier to understand when you take them to their extremes.  Then their differences become more pronounced. This is the value of sq...

There are two perspectives of the MOQ. 

The one, is that ultimately everything is DQ. DQ is fundamental. It is before all things.  It is the source of all things.  This is the perspective of the Mystic.  From the perspective of a Mystic there is no such thing as sq because sq values distinctions.  A mystic sees no need for value in distinctions because ultimately, everything is DQ anyway. You have said that everyone is a Mystic and I agree.  I agree with this perspective.  Fundamentally it's right.  You cannot define things.  You always get it wrong. Things aren't fixed. But the MOQ isn't just Mysticism. It's more than that..

The other perspective of the MOQ is that of static quality.  From this perspective what is valuable is clear distinctions. It likes things which are old and complex. Within static quality things have very definite meanings.  And from this perspective there is no such thing as DQ because DQ cannot be defined and that's all sq is, it's definitions.  

Metaphysics is a degenerate activity.  We are being degenerate here Mark.  We're defining that which cannot be defined.  Sq is degeneracy.  But this is where the MOQ differs from Mysticism.  The MOQ says that we're alive and we can't help but define.  So let's define as best we can.
> 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.
> 
> 

Ultimately explaining it is impossible.  For words represent things which are not it.  You can only analogise about it...
 
To say that sq without DQ is 'hollow and without meaning' is a Mystic perspective.  It's not incorrect. From a sq perspective however, it has a meaning of it's own.  Sq's 'meaning' comes from the distinction which is made. The harmony which is produced. And this sq harmony is a different harmony for each different sq.  Really, we are being 'non-mystical' when we use words for things.  I don't disagree that it is a mistake to 'prostrate to words and concepts' and forget that the words are tools to realise DQ. Too much sq can strangle the light of DQ. 

But, really, Metaphysics is a mistake. It is capturing that which cannot be caught. Let's not forget that or sq really will strangle DQ.
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> 

What do you mean by 'objective point of view'? You seem to use it differently than my understanding.. I take the objective to be biological and inorganic patterns. Subjective - social and intellectual patterns.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 

Ultimately there is nothing to compare, yes. But here we are. We've alive and we can compare.  So let's get our comparisons and distinctions between how good things are - the best we can!
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 

Okay. 
> > > 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> 

When I say it has lasted forever I mean that the very nature of static quality is that it is static and fixed. This isn't the only perspective we can have, but it is one of static quality.
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> 

Static quality is our perspective. It isn't our only perspective but it is our perspective. Who is the 'We' who created the city if it isn't static quality?  I think the distinction which I highlighted at the start of this post makes this issue clear. From a Mystic perspective, no thing created the city. So 'we' did not as you highlight.  But if we're to take the question seriously, we, you and me, static quality, create the city. Static quality is what you expect. The city is something that can be defined. 

If what you wrote is an analogy, what is it an analogy of? DQ? If it is an analogy of DQ, then the distinctions between this and that static quality which you speak are irrelevent. 
 
> > 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.
> 
> 

Yes exactly, this is value of a sq perspective.  It is useful from a sq perspective to break a river into patterns of water. It is useful not just for the beginner.  There isn't a person alive who can help but make a distinction between this and that quality. This is what it is to be alive. So let's get these distinctions as best we can..

When you say that an equation for a photon of a bridge is not the bridge - this is a Mystical statement.  But I think there is a lot more to the MOQ than this Mystical perspective.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 

To be clear - here you seem to be saying that thinking sq is DQ avoids problems of 'robots following instructions' and a non-mystical aware 'sleep'. But this is still more Mystical perspective Mark. I agree with you but you are not talking sq.  You are still talking from the perspective of DQ where the distinctions between things is not important.  
> 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.
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Yeah I agree, words represent harmony. This harmony is quality. One way of making something better, is by doing it over and over and over again.  I sense our conversation will go like this.  It might feel like we aren't getting anywhere but I think we are.  We are continually going over and over, and slowly but surely, if we do it with care long enough, quality can't help but shine through..

Thanks Mark,

-David.