[MD] SOM Problem #6523213: Relativity and Truth

[Joseph Maurer]

Hi Mark, David and all,

The difficulty with not defining DQ begs the question: "What is evolution?"
In philosophical parlance there are no terms defining evolution.  To make
some sense of evolution I define Evolution as levels in existence.  DQ then
becomes the mark for discreet levels in existence.  Without the metaphysics
of DQ/SQ there is no way to conceptualize existence even though indefinable
existence has meaning in evolution.

Joe  


On 1/16/12 4:31 AM, "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.
> 
> On 15/01/2012, at 4:52 PM, 118 wrote:
> 
>> Hi David,
>> I would not consider what I provided as a definition.  In fact it is much
>> less so than your definition of DQ as that which causes change.  Perhaps you
>> can support such a contention (?).  I do not believe you can.  A bullet
>> causes change, but it is far from DQ.  Patterns change completely when you
>> are dead.
>> 
>> Perhaps you should consider your own definitions. Before commenting on what
>> you think are another's definition.  I would not go so far as to say that
>> dynamic quality creates change.  But that is how I read it.  I am providing a
>> perspective, not a definition.  There is a big difference.
>> 
>> By the way, there are no patterns from the inside looking out, that would be
>> impossible.  Think about it.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>> Mark
>> 
>> On Jan 14, 2012, at 7:06 PM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Mark,
>>> 
>>> I am a stickler on this forum and generally against any definition of
>>> Dymamic Quality as I think that any definition you give destroys DQ and the
>>> MOQ. In that light I dislike the definition of Dynamic Quality as 'the
>>> inside out' or 'creativity'.  I see these things as exactly that, two
>>> different static quality things and thus not Dynamic Quality.  That said, I
>>> would describe creativity as a direct result of and reaction to Dynamic
>>> Quality but of course not Dynamic Quality itself.
>>> 
>>> -David
>>> 
>>> On 15/01/2012, at 1:33 PM, 118 wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi David,
>>>> Well put.  Another way, I think, to differentiate between sq and DQ, is
>>>> that the former is looking from "the outside in" whereas the latter is
>>>> looking from "the inside out".  I can elaborate on this, but I do not know
>>>> how you understand what I present.
>>>> 
>>>> So I will leave it at: Our creativity is DQ, what we create is sq.  that
>>>> would be answer 4732 which I have provided, but they all say the same
>>>> thing.
>>>> 
>>>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>>>> Mark
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 14, 2012, at 5:55 PM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Marsha et al,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think there needs to be a few distinctions made here.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.  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.  To say that static patterns are relative is like
>>>>> saying they exist because any comparison creates a pattern.  All we can
>>>>> say about static patterns existing is that they do exist and are better
>>>>> than nothing. Right?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -David
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I take the term 'truth' to mean "conformity with fact or reality".  In
>>>>>> most definitions, ³reality² is pretty much defined as ³that which
>>>>>> exists².  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
>>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 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
>> 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
> 
> 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