[MD] Relativism, a definition

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Marsha,
> Marsha said:
>
> Static patterns of value are processes, conditionally co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized, that pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern.  Within the MoQ, these patterns are categorized into a four-level, evolutionary, hierarchical structure:  inorganic, biological, social and intellectual. This static value exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns.  Patterns depend upon innumerable causes and conditions (patterns), depend upon parts and the collection of parts (patterns), depend upon conceptual designation (patterns). Patterns have no independent, inherent existence.  Further, these patterns represent "what works" depending upon on an individual's static pattern of life history.

Tuukka:
You sound a bit like Aristotle making lists, but I do think I see your 
point here. Well, that's one kind of relativism, which brings us to the 
problem of defining relativism. Static quality does not allow moral 
relativism, because even though the patterns or slots are defined 
relative to each other, they comprise an absolute value hierarchy once 
the definition is done. That is why it's confusing to call static 
quality "relativistic". It will easily give the wrong impression. I 
think it's better to say that static quality is "recursive". Because 
relativism doesn't automatically imply that the structure of the theory 
is co-dependent of itself.

If you state that "Truth X is a relativistic truth" then that might as 
well mean that in some cultures, it is considered true, and in others, 
it is not. It doesn't imply any kind of internal co-dependence or 
self-determination within truth X itself. Only that truth X depends on 
something else. And even that does not necessarily imply recursion, 
because such a dependency could also be linear.

Another reason why it's confusing to call static quality relativistic 
is, that it's everything that can be defined. So if it's relative to 
something, what is it relative to? Isn't everything else relative to it? 
To be sure, we could say static quality is relative to Dynamic Quality, 
and nobody could prove that wrong, but DQ is undefinable, and I'm 
interested in system building here. I don't expect people to be able to 
speak of DQ in a casual manner and put DQ as a meaningful point of 
reference when trying to build a recursive system. That would be like 
trying to clap with one hand. And besides DQ, there is apparently 
nothing whatsoever that static quality could be relative to.

-Tuukka