On Jan 14, 2012, at 8:55 PM, David Harding <davidjharding@gmai...> 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.  

SOM has more than a few problems; especially the implication that entities are things-in-themselves. If every SOM statement is tossed out, we'd be left with very few.  Who will choose which statements go and which statements stay?  Should choice be based on a cultural bias?  

The statement 'All swans are white', 'All dogs are mean' or 'All anything is anything', for that matter, hane a problem from the subject-object perspective.  It's an inductive problem at the very least.  "Truth is relative" from a MoQ perspective works quite well.


> 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?

To say static patterns are relative is to say static pattern exist dependent on other static patterns.

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.  

> 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.

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.


> 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.  

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.  


> 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). They are not the same for even one moment, but they change within a stable, predictability.


> -David

Imho, of course,  

Marsha



>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> 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':  
>>
>> 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