[MD] SOM Problem #6523213: Relativity and Truth

[David Harding]

Hi Marsha,

By prove I simply meant provide an example, you know being that the MOQ is pragmatic and everything. It seems you no longer want to try and understand what I wrote? If that's the case, I totally get it.  Sometimes trying to understand what someone else is saying can be very difficult, particularly when a non-concept such as Dynamic Quality is involved.  Regardless, I've responded your question in the hope that you might change your mind..

>> Firstly, you're insisting on static quality being 'impermanent' and 'relative' to stress the importance of how 'Dynamic Quality is going to change things anyway' but by changing your definition of static quality this has actually inadvertently defined Dynamic Quality.   Static quality is fixed quality. Everything you can define and point your finger at is static quality.  Without Dynamic Quality, static quality gets old and dies. This is a core part of the first division of the MOQ. A single first Metaphysical split only works when a clear line is drawn as to what happens in the absence of another thing otherwise there is no definition. 
> 
> How can you prove this?  What are you saying here?

You can prove this logically. There is no distinction between A or B if you cannot say how either of them is different in the absence of the other.

>> To this you may respond. "Of course without Dynamic Quality, static quality gets old and dies. That's why I insist on everything being relative and static quality being impermanent.'  But let me repeat.   Static quality in the absence of Dynamic Quality gets old and dies.   It doesn't get better. It doesn't improve. It gets old and dies. You cannot use word tricks, or mind tricks to get around this. You cannot 'outwit' Dynamic Quality. Because Dynamic Quality isn't anything. See?
> 
> I don't see.  And I wonder how you can know this or prove it?

One can only 'prove' this via analogy. Dynamic Quality isn't something you can prove intellectually, it's something you experience. For a book full of such analogies I point you do the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu. Or, Steve Hagen, whom I know you read already.

>> I agree, I have a problem with the statement 'All swans are white', no matter what your perspective.  In that case, I think that 'truth is relative, so we don't really know what's true' is a SOM statement.   '
> 
> Can you prove it is a SOM statement?  We can know what is conventionally true, isn't that good enough for you?  Do you want to know what is true in some other form?  What form would that be?

Conventional, everyday, how good something is at describing reality truth is fine for me.  But in SOM; truth is an absolute and so when people make a good case that truth isn't absolute because it depends on which culture the truth is from and who is saying it, this destroys the absolute and thus the foundations of SOM. 

>> Truth is relative' does work from a MOQ perspective, however that comparison between two truths only exists once the comparison is made.  It is not necessary in order for those two truths to exist. 
> 
> I'm not sure of what YOU mean by your use of two-truths.  It might be different from my understanding so I think you'd better explain how you know this and how you can prove it?

You have said that in order for truth to exist it must be relative. I disagree with this because, as I've said, you needn't think of two truths in order for the first one to exist.

>>> To say static patterns are relative is to say static pattern exist dependent on other static patterns.
>> 
>> But how can you prove this? What is it exactly you are saying here? Why is this 'relativity' so important?
> 
> I can show you my MoQ-decoder ring.  I found it in a cereal box in the Autumn of 2009.

To prove something is to provide an example - being that the MOQ is pure empiricism.  This answer seems to confirm my suspicion that you don't know how to prove that relativity is important.  Or can you?

>> As stated previously, I don't think that truth must be 'relative' in order for it to exist.  In fact, I think that comparing two truths is simply creating another pattern, independent of whatever it is that you're comparing.
> 
> On what basis do you think this?  I don't believe there is a controlling homunculus consciously comparing and creating patterns, so I have no idea what you are talking about.  

On the basis that you have said that truth must be relative for it to exist.  I don't need to think about two patterns and their 'relativity' in order to know they exist.  They exist regardless of how relative these things are.

>> I agree with all this except for the conditional co-dependence and the emphasis on how some patterns are 'relative' to others.  Fundamentally, patterns don't exist but here we are Marsha, talking now.  Good patterns have great harmony.  Two good patterns don't need to be 'relative' to one another in order to exist.  All we can say is that they do exist and that's better than nothing.  Right Marsha?

Wow lots of questions...

> No, not right!  How do you know this?

How do I know that patterns don't need to be 'relative' for them to exist? From experience, as I've said already.

> How do you know patterns exist to be able to say they exist?

From experience. Patterns are a fundamental part of the MOQ.  The MOQ is the best description of reality there is and so therefore, patterns exist.

> Can you prove patterns are independent?  

Yes, logically as I have shown above.

> How do you know a pattern is better than nothing? What can you tell me about nothing?

Obviously I can't tell you anything about nothing. I'm alive and happy to be so. Being alive is better than nothing, or you don't think so?

> What do you mean by harmony?

Harmony is a synonym for quality.

> Is there no place in your life for dissonance?

Yeah, I find that generally things are dissonant when they are of a low quality.

> Are you sure?  Do you have proof?  Do you like Beethoven?  

My 'proofs' are the examples I've provided above, and yes I do like Beethoven.

>>> In the MoQ there are Dynamic Quality/static quality.  Static patterns of value are categorized by their function: inorganic, biological, social & intellectual.  From a MoQ point-of-view there is no categories differentiating between ''truth of something' and 'thing itself'.  What is known to us is static patterns.  If the term 'truth' is to be used it can only represent the conventional-static-provisional existence of patterns.  We can drop the word truth:  no relative truths or pragmatic truths.  That is what is meant by conventional (relative) truths being labeled illusion, anyway.
>> 
>> Truth is intellectual quality.  It's no different that what you find in a dictionary.  
> 
> I don' agree with this.  There is an intellectual pattern named 'truth', but I did post my definition:
> 
> "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". "
> 
> If you didn't agree with this definition, you should said so when I posted it.  You making me laugh?  

Honestly I wouldn't have thought you'd disagree with the dictionary definition of the word. Just so we're clear, what you are claiming is different to Pirsig's views on this:

" We must all use terms as they are described in the dictionary or we lose the ability to communicate with each other." - Lila's Child.

>> That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality: "tell me the truth".
>> 
>> e.g. An Intellectual description of reality (value).
> 
> I cannot imagine how this conversation continues considering we do not agree on its most basic definition.

I'm surprised you disagree with the dictionary on truth.  Is there any other definitions which you chose not to use?

>>> Static patterns of value are ever-changing, whether representing the inorganic, biological, social or intellectual category.  Static patterns are NOT some concrete, abstract ideal ala Plato, unless you've misunderstood the MoQ.  Seems to me it is a lack of paying attention that make patterns appear changeless.  
>> 
>> Here is your response to my mistake of claiming that static quality is permanent. I agree - it isn't.  Static quality is not permanent, however it doesn't get any better in the absence of Dynamic Quality - it gets worse and dies.
> 
> How do you know this?  Can you prove this? 

Yes. Think of something, anything.  Eventually it will get old and die. These words which we are using, the iPad you're reading this from, you and I, every thing gets old and dies.  There isn't something which exists which won't do this.  That is my proof.

>>>> In order for static quality patterns to change, that requires Dymamic Quality.  From the perspective of Dynamic Quality, or enlightenment, there are no patterns.
>>> 
>>> Static patterns change because of Dynamic Quality.  Patterns, conceptual and perceptual, are overlaid onto Dynamic Quality (as some have tried to explain within the constrictions of language).
>> 
>> You cannot explain it and by doing so you define Dynamic Quality and destroy the Metaphysics of Quality.  There's so much conflating of Dynamic Quality with change going on.  I even inadvertently did it when I suggested that static patterns are permanent.   But doing so destroys the Metaphysics of Quality.  I shudder at thought of defining Dynamic Quality.  It should not be defined. 

More questions...

> You've given opinion.  

Yes. Opinion. Everything anyone has ever said is opinion. Just some opinions are better than others. 

> How do you know the MoQ would be destroyed?

Because DQ is a fundamental division of the MOQ.  A division which provides its strength.  The MOQ is open to being replaced by something better.

> Would all reference to the MoQ evaporate?

No, by destroying the MOQ I mean that it significantly lowers its quality and turns the undefined quality of the MOQ into the defined.

> What is the basis of your statement "There's so much conflating of Dynamic Quality with change going on.". What does that even mean?  How does that relate to you stating that static patterns are independent?  

What this means is that, as I've stated previously, you seem to be trying to get around Dynamic Quality by including 'change' as part of your definition of static quality.  Trying to 'outwit' Dynamic Quality. But static quality isn't 'change'.  It is 'fixed' more than it changes. When it's independent of DQ; it's so fixed it cannot adapt and gets old and dies.   It's called static quality for a reason.

> And what does your shuddering have to do with anything?  Should it have some impact on my understanding?  Do you need to put on a sweater?  Are you chilled?

By my shuddering I was showing that I don't like the idea. But you already knew that..


>>> They are not the same for even one moment, but they change within a stable, predictability.
>> 
>> Yes, they 'change' but this change is Not Dynamic Quality. This is what destroys the Metaphysics of Quality. 
> 
> And I never said the basis for the change is totally Dynamic Quality.  Can you explain the nature of consciousness in the MoQ?  RMP has said that static quality is anything that can be conceptualized?   Is consciousness unchanging?
> 
> I agree Dynamic Quality should not be define.

I know that you agree with me on this. And that's cool.  However, as I've said I still think that you are inadvertently destroying DQ by trying to include 'change' as part of your definition of static quality.  Yes, the concept of change is static quality, just along with everything else. But static quality itself is more static than change. Hence the name.

-David