David,
> Firstly, the word 'relativity' from a SOM perspective is a problem.
> 'All truths are relative and so we don't really know what's true' is
> a SOM statement.
I'm not sure whether you mean "relativity, as that word is used within
the SOM perspective, is a problem" or "relativity is a problem from a
SOM perspective". I'd say the word 'relativity' is a problem from any
perspective, because it has different meaning depending on the
context. In a Buddhist context it means something it apparently
doesn't mean in any branch of Western moral philosophy. But Buddhist
"relativism" has analogues in computer science, such as "recursion"
and "dynamically typed programming language".
> From the perspective of the MOQ, relativity simply implies that a
> comparison between two patterns has been made. This comparison is
> itself a pattern like every other and is not a requirement for
> static patterns to exist.
From a logical point of view, the comparison pattern is
metatheoretic, so it's not "a pattern like every other", if you excuse
my nitpicking. Such a metapattern has potential existence, but I'm not
sure in what sense it is supposed to exist, when a person is not
performing meta-analysis. I mean, there is no upper limit to how many
metalevels there could be, but not all of them "exist" in any sense
that is different to the way how obscenely large numbers, which I
cannot express, "exist".
> To say that static patterns are relative is like saying they exist
> because any comparison creates a pattern.
I'm not sure what this means.
> All we can say about static patterns existing is that they do exist
> and are better than nothing. Right?
We can say that, but I wouldn't say that's all we can say about them.
Their mutual relations could best be described by the concept of
"linear emergence". In RP, there are more complex emergence relations.
In RP, it does make sense to say the patterns are recursively defined.
Canonical MOQ, on the other hand, is not well-defined enough to
definitively and readily explain, what it would mean to say the
patterns are recursively defined. But because reality defining itself
recursively is a Buddhist doctrine, it can readily _seen_ to be
attachable to the MOQ even though it is not as readily, on a formal
level, seen _already_present_ in the MOQ.
>
> Secondly, there is a distinction is between the 'truth' of something
> and that thing itself. For instance there is a difference between
> the idea or truth of a tree and the 'treeness' that you experience.
> Or to put it another way, there is a difference between the
> intellectual level 'truth' of a tree and the biological tree.
>
Yeah. Oftentimes the "truth" is called an intension and the "thing
itself" is called an extension. Speaking of "things as themselves"
("Ding an sich") can make certain other philosophers roll in their
graves, which is a bit undesirable.
> Finally, there is another important distinction between ordinary
> everyday static quality perspective and the perspective of DQ. In
> ordinary, everyday land, static patterns do not change and they are
> very permanent. In order for static quality patterns to change,
> that requires Dymamic Quality. From the perspective of Dynamic
> Quality, or enlightenment, there are no patterns.
That's pretty wild... I would not imagine myself to be able to take
the Perspective of Dynamic Quality. That would be like being able to
see things like the true God sees them. I don't even know what that
would mean. I don't what is the perspective of Dynamic Quality like,
and I don't understand how anyone could know it sees no patterns. How
could Dynamic Quality latch to something that does not exist?
-Tuukka
>
> -David
>
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I take the term 'truth' to mean "conformity with fact or reality".
>> In most definitions, “reality” is pretty much defined as “that
>> which exists”. In the MoQ, static patterns on value exist; exist
>> not as independent, inherent entities, but as patterns. As such, I
>> take static patterns of value to represent truths. When I present
>> my definition of 'static patterns of value', I am presenting my
>> definition of 'truths':
>>
>> 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. Static quality exists in stable patterns
>> relative to other patterns. Patterns exist relative to innumerable
>> causes and conditions (patterns), relative to parts and the
>> collection of parts (patterns), relative to conceptual designation
>> (patterns). Patterns have no independent, inherent existence.
>> Further, these patterns pragmatically exist relative to an
>> individual's static pattern of life history.
>>
>>
>> Marsha
> 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
>