[MD] SOM Problem #6523213: Relativity and Truth

[David Harding]

Hi Mark,

> Thanks for the discussion.

Likewise.

> 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.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'depending on the strength of the agreement'.  Apart from that I agree with all of this.

> 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.

I think the confusion here is that of perspective.  From a static quality, logical, intellectual perspective, DQ both is and is not defined. In other words, from a static quality perspective the distinction between DQ and static quality must be made in order for the undefined Dynamic Quality to exist.  But from a Dynamic Quality perspective however, this logical contradiction disappears as Dynamic Quality precedes logic. 

Therefore, it is logically true that for DQ and sq to exist - they must be distinguished, but that is only true on static quality logical reflection.  It does not determine whether that static quality exists to begin with.  According to the MOQ what's fundamental is DQ.  The static quality comes later. This is why I say that such a relative comparison is not necessary for static quality to exist. All we can say is that these patterns exist and if we want to we can also say - that's better than nothing. :-)

> In order to conceptualize the presense of static patterns we must
> contextualize them relationally.

I disagree. I think that we can experience static quality without having to contextualise it.  We certainly can and do contextualise, but this is not necessary for static quality to exist.

> 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.)  

I disagree that these patterns need to create relationships with other such structures and no structure in order to exist.  We can certainly do this but it is not necessary.  As I've said to Marsha. Think of a first pattern. Now think of a second pattern.  How did the first one exist if the second one wasn't there to compare it to begin with?

On an unrelated note, why is it misleading to say that the sea shore is relative to the land and ocean?

> 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.

I don't argue that differentiation is not possible.  Of course it is. But it is not necessary to experience static patterns.

> 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).

Yes, DQ is not the subconscious.  Unfortunately, I'm not very fond of your "inside looking out" analogy though.  It seems to bring to my mind a fixed 'inside' and a fixed 'outside'. Two very static things.

> 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).

Yeah. I'd call it living in the moment too :-)

> 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".

I agree with you that what you've described is living in the moment, but as I've said above I have a problem with the analogy of  "inside looking out".

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

Not at all. Mostly understood.

Thanks,

-David.