[MD] SOM Problem #6523213: Relativity and Truth

118 ununoctiums at gmail.com
Tue Jan 17 14:47:27 PST 2012 

Hi Joe,
In my opinion, DQ/sq is a conceptualization of existence.  The result
of their interaction results in the appearance of levels.  The method
which we describe such appearance is through the concept of evolution
(in that I agree with you).  As such, this evolution is demarkated by
distinct species (cannot mate with each other to form offspring),
which (for whatever reason) are said congeal in a manner which can be
classified by us simple humans.  My opinion is that we create these
levels more than observe them, but that is just me.

I have to say, that there are plenty of other forms of metaphysics
which also conceptualize existence, for, that is what metaphysics
does.  For this reason, I include the Sciences, such as Physics
(including Math), Religions, Mysticism, Shamanism, and New Age
Movements (not to mention Sesame Street) as metaphysics.  Let's get
real, all propose an answer to what existence is.

Obviously some types of metaphysics are more popular than others.  Is
this because people are stupid not to gravitate towards MoQ?  I think
not, since people much brighter than I are convinced by physics or
Christianity.  It may be because other forms of metaphysics have
better presenters.  It may also be because some are more easy to
grasp.  Perhaps MoQ should be easier to understand.  We do not need a
shaman for that, we need an interpreter.  Such interpretation has been
successful for all the great philosophies (Carl Sagan comes to mind).

I am still waiting for the MoQ book on that one, hopefully it is in progress...

Mark

On 1/17/12, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> 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
>

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list