[MD] Relativism, a definition

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Marsha,
well, I need to be a bit more specific here. Dynamic Quality is 
undefinable, but there might be other undefinable things _besides_ 
Dynamic Quality. The existence of such things cannot be proven and 
cannot be disproven. In practice, this maybe doesn't matter so much. But 
to be exact, static quality (definable things) is relative to 
undefinable things (including DQ but maybe something else, too). But if 
other things than DQ are undefinable, it doesn't have any practical 
implications for system building, because they can't be defined.

-Tuukka



6.1.2012 13:33, Tuukka Virtaperko kirjoitti:
> 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
> 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
>