[MD] Truth and Relativity 2.0

[118]

Hi David,
Thank you for the clarification, I will attempt to add to it.

On 2/13/12, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I would not necessarily say it is a degenerate activity.  I see it
more as a creative activity.  The flower of a plant is not degenerate.
 Metaphysics is a presentation of DQ in static terms.  This is
extremely useful for the expression of the human spirit.  I believe
that DQ and sq are symbiotic.  Both impact each other, and it is not a
one way road.  For this reason, I find the split of DQ and sq to be
somewhat informative.

If we say that DQ is fundamental, we dismiss this interaction and end
up with a deterministic outlook.  Free-will itself is DQ, but such
fre-will is impacted by the sq that we form.  As you have said, our
static consciousness is continually upgraded by DQ.  However, the
structure of such sq consciousness must exist for upgrading.
Therefore, DQ operates within (or acts on) certain parameters set by
sq.  An analogy would be the path of a river.  If, for illustrative
purposes, we denote the water of the river as DQ, and the valley
through which it runs as sq, then we can present the following:  The
shape of the river is formed both by the dynamic component of the
water, and the static component of the land.  Both are necessary for
the final path.

So, yes, as with anything we can fathom, there are two components, DQ
and sq.  If we use the grammatical distinction between nouns and verbs
we can analogize the same thing.  Nouns are said to act, at the same
time, nouns are acted upon.  The dynamic nature of the static then
comprises the nature of reality as depicted by DQ/sq.

When we say that there is no such thing as DQ, we are making a point.
It is misleading to try to take this point farther than the point
itself.  If we do, we get lost in what the point was to begin with.
The point is to present the nature of DQ as it relates to sq.


> Ultimately explaining it is impossible.  For words represent things which
> are not it.  You can only analogise about it...

Explaining is creation, therefore it is possible and is continuously
being done.  I would not dismiss such explanatory activity as it adds
much to our existence.  If we see it as creation rather than a sort of
uncovering, we do not get lost in it.  Ultimately explanations are as
real as anything else.  But they are only part of the story.  An
explanation adds depth to our interaction with reality.  We are
complex beings.  I find such a thing astonishing.
>
> 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.

I suppose that we can say we are being non-mystical if we only look at
the end product of the words.  However, the act of creating the words
is mystical in essence.  It is no different from the sun creating
light.  The way we would be non-mystical is to think only in terms of
the words.  We, of course, cannot do that since words are only the
final product of thought.  There is much that goes on before that.
>
> 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.

Yes I agree with the stranglehold.  However, any creation cannot be
said to be a mistake.  We can, however, use such creation mistakenly,
if it surrounds one with bars like a cage.  I prefer to to see what I
do not as cage making, but more as bridge building.  The Bridge to
Nowhere, as it were.

>> >
> 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.

What I mean from an objective point of view is to assume that what we
depict lies outside of our depiction of it.  For example, we treat a
"chair" as an object separate from our realization of it.  This is a
useful point of view when we, as humans, are sharing our appreciation
of things.  By using the objective format, I can transfer to you my
awareness of "chair" in such a way that you can grab it, run with it,
and return to me your awareness of such a thing.  Therefore, for the
purposes of exchange, we objectivise things with words, for we need
something to exchange.  However, once the word gets into another's
head, it is dynamically appreciated.

Words are objectications of subjective awarenesses.  The problem, as I
see it, is when words are considered to be more than that.  When this
happens, words take on a life of their own.  Dogmatic religion has
fallen into this trap.  It sets forth dictates which are then
dutifully followed without any questioning as to what they represent.
Civil laws are the same way.  We are told that a piece of music is
good for such and such reasons and we must therefore appreciate it.
And so forth.  I hope this provides you awareness of what I mean by
"objective point of view".
>> > > >
>>
>> 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!

Yes, ultimately I guess, whatever that means :-).  What we compare if
we live in the sq world, are the objectivized forms of experience.
However, the experience comes before the objects are formed in our
heads.  I think this is important to keep in mind, in terms of MoQ.
My experience with one apple is different from my experience with
another apple.  It is not the apples we are comparing, but the
experiences.  The apples are simply placeholders, if you will, so that
we can say to someone "this apple is better than that apple"  We are
of course referring to our experience of them.  They do not exist
separate from such experience.  If we follow the tenent of Arete,
which is quite missing in our current society of "Victims being
rewarded", for sure, lets do the best we can!
>> >
>> > 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.

What I would say is that the experience itself is dynamic.  It becomes
static when we intellectualize it.  Therefore our perspective
progresses as with steps: dynamic/static/dynamic/static...  But, I
agree that static quality will always be static quality.  That cannot
help but last.
>> >

> 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.

When I think of "perspective" I am including the dynamic component of
such perspective, not only the static end result.  The "We" that
created the city points to the human spirit (since the term spirit is
not much liked, I will switch to the term "creative potential"), which
is DQ in essence.  It is the potential of creativity.  We can say that
such creative potential is "no thing" since it cannot be pointed to.
Only its effects can be pointed to.  Static quality cannot create
static quality in my view.  A brick cannot create a building.  Yes,
the city can be defined, but the creative potential which provides it
cannot.  The city itself as it stands with all its buildings is only
the objectivised end result.
>
> 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.

Any analogy is a representation.  Analogies work by presenting
something that we agree on as having meaning to represent something
that we are attempting to agree on (wow, that was begining not to make
sense, but I will leave it in for humor).  By agreeing on things they
become temporarily static so that we can progress up the staircase of
discussion and understanding between ourselves.  If the analogy is of
DQ, it does not mean that it IS DQ.  Any analogy should be taken as a
form of expression, and should not be confused with what it is seeking
to represent.  Therefore an analogy is as dynamic as you make it when
you receive it.  It is simply another package of objectivised reality.
 I would not get caught in that circle of "everything that we create
is static, even the act of creating it".  This is untrue in my
opinion.
>
>>
>> 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..

Yes.  To break a river up does have meaning depending on what it is
used for.  If we break such a river up in order to better understand
the molecular nature of the hydrogen bonding so as to use this in
constructing hydroelectro plants, it is good.  But to break such river
up for a ferryman is meaningless.  When I speak of the beginner, I am
referring to that place where we all start in creating an
understanding of something.  To break reality up into patterns is not
useful for those of us who seek to look beyond that first step.
Indeed, Pirsig wrote his book for the beginer as well.  Believe me, as
a scientist, most of my job is about deconstruction.  I do this to
make what I find useful for a future purpose.  I do not yet understand
what the usefulness of the pattern approach is, until it is taken to
the next step.  There is a lot of placid gathering around this
drinking hole, but the migration must move on.  All my humble opinion,
of course, which sometimes comes off as not so humble :-).
>
> 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.

I suppose that by saying our daily lives occur mainly in the mystical
is a mystical perspective, but I would argue against this.  When we
make such a statement, it is not in the realm of a mystic perspective,
but in the realm of logic.  We are representing a mystical experience
with a logical analogy.  So the "robots following instructions" is not
a mystical presentation.  If I were to stand in front of you and act
and make noises of a robot, that would be closer to the mystical way
of presentation.

Even from a mystical perspective distinctions are important.  However,
the things themselves are not looked at directly, but what form the
distinctions is.  This that creates distintions is unifying.  This is
what I call Quality.  Quality is not held by objects, but is that
which allows us to distinguish between them.  It comes before the
objectification of such things.



> 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..

Word do represent harmony.  It is through words that we can harmonize
a society.  Words are useless to an individual in isolation, but
completely necessary for the social level.  Words are also ritual, and
we need not separate them out as different from ritual.  "I pledge
allegiance to the flag..." So we are partaking in a modern day ritual
here.  Much cleansing can come from ritual, so long as the ritual is
left once done.  With words these days it is hard to leave them since
they are so pervasive.  It is a rebalance that I am advocating.  From
birth we are taught that words are so important.  We all wait with
anticipation for a childs first words and then deliver such praise and
recognition that the child can only become part of the group's
bewitchment.  Feelings and creativity are placed beneath the Power of
the Word.  This can be seen as the split that Pirsig speaks of in ZAMM
that is analogized by Plato.
>
Thanks for acknowledging my "rants", as it were (not my word, but from
others in this forum).  It allows me to feel alive and creative.

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
>