[MD] SOM Problem #6523213: Relativity and Truth

[118]

Hi David,
Thanks for the discussion.

As I see it, definitions are terms of agreement.  We can present an
experience in vague terminology as part of a discussion, but I agree
with you that to discuss DQ does indeed relegate it to perhaps
inappropriate definitions; but what can we do?  I do not believe that
providing terms for DQ is necessarily destructive so long as they are
seen as a mode for discussion.  I do not have a problem with the
"undefined" nature of DQ, so long as we do not let that detract from
our discussing it.  As I have presented in other posts, any definition
of anthing is an approximation.  It's use depends on the strength of
the agreement.  It would seem that we could agree on DQ in order to
progress MoQ, without signifying that such agreement IS DQ.  I am
against dogma or scripture as truth, for that destroys one's personal
relationship with the cosmos.  More below.

On 1/16/12, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> I get your point. Yes I have since noticed that I wrote that 'static quality
> is permanent' to Marsha.  My mistake. Static quality is fixed, but not
> permanent.  Dynamic Quality shouldn't be defined. Especially not 'that which
> causes change'. It's so easy to inadvertently define Dynamic Quality and
> this destroys the Metaphysics of Quality.   I really don't get your 'no
> patterns from the inside looking out'?
>
> -David.
>
Yes, "the inside looking out".  It seems to me that you provide some
perspective on this in your answer to Marsha concerning the "lack of
need" (my quotes) for relatively comparing patterns.  I will present
(as best I can) what I mean.

It would seem that for a static pattern to present itself, it must be
something that is encapsulated as distinct from other.  We can say
that such pattern recognition (or creation) is distinct from the
absense of pattern, much in the same way that words on a page are
distinct from the page background.  Metaphysically we must invoke the
concept of "no pattern" which is similar to creating the concept of
zero.  Zero is an abstract value which allows the presentation of
something.  So, we have static patterns formed as opposed to there
being none.

In order to conceptualize the presense of static patterns we must
contextualize them relationally.  They then form structures with
relationships with other such structures and with relation to no
structure.  (I am not invoking relativism since this is a direct form
of measurement.  While we can say that the sea shore is relative to
the land and the ocean, but I believe this is misleading.  We can say
that the seashore arrises from the interface of the land and the
ocean, and is therefore a relational arrising.)  The contextualizing
of static patterns requires an "outside looking in" approach.  That
is, an outside view of our place juxtaposed with such patterns is
created as is necessary.  This then displays the numerous dichotomies
(or plurachotomies -my word :-) ), as "seen from above".  Thus
differentiation marches on.

When I speak of the "inside looking out", I am referring to a view
which does not contain this form of differentiation.  In MoQ, the
concept of "pre-static patterns" (my terms) is invoked.  This would be
the "pre-intellect" or "direct sensing" idea that Pirsig and James
relate to.  Through the course of a day, most of our experience
resides in the "direct" area, which could vaguely be termed the
subconscious (although this label is fraught with problems due to
modern psychology, although I mean anything we assimilate that is not
in our active consciousness).

I believe that it may be possible to loosely analogize this awareness
with DQ.  In my interpretation, "living in the moment", or "Zen
living" implies this awareness.  This does not mean "not caring about
the future or the past" as it is sometimes considered in a nihilistic
way.  For indeed, one can plan and remember while in this awareness.
What this takes (IMHO) is the realization that one is planning or
remembering "in the moment".  In this way, the mind does not become
robotic and direct our daily existence, for such a thing would be akin
to being "asleep".  Nurturing this awareness belongs to Zen training,
and can be compared to mystic awareness (again IMO, as is everything I
write).  This is awareness without distinctions being made by the
intellect.  This can also be analogized as "the mechanic becoming the
motorcycle".  This is what I would call "living in the moment".  In
this state, the mind is free from predefined methods for fixing a
gas-tank, for example, or getting stuck in static patterns, (a
gumption trap).

This is one presentation of what I mean by "the inside looking out".
I can provide others depending on how you understand "this what I
write".

Hopefully I have not lost you with my inability to articulate this.

Cheers,
Mark

ps.  No spellcheck available now available on this Gmail through
Internet Explorer because Google is trying to take over the world!  So
bear with me on any spelling errors.

>
> 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
>