From: David Harding (davidharding@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Sat Nov 12 2005 - 04:48:42 GMT
Hi Rebecca,
Rebecca Temmer wrote:
> Hello David and Case,
>
> I'll start using the term 'relationism' instead of 'relativism' to help
> clear things up.
>
> David wrote:
>
>
>>I don't think that you need to compare something to something else in
>>order for it to be bad, or good. Sit on a hot stove, is it bad or good?
>>Listen to your favorite song, is it bad or good? All
>>that's being compared is the music to Dynamic Quality, which isn't really
>>a comparison, because Dynamic Quality is nothing and is there all along. But
>>to understand it intellectually/metaphysically however, I agree, I'd need to
>>compare what happened with past experiences and make a judgement as to
>>whether it was a good thing or a bad thing. Maybe it's a social requirement
>>that we have singed pants? :)
>>
>
>
> Rebecca:
> I disagree that you're comparing your experience to DQ. You're comparing
> your position on that hot stove to your previous experience that's not on
> the hot stove.
>
> Case said in a further post:
> Consider for a moment a merely warm stove. It may not be so hot as to burn
> you. It may be the only place in the room to sit.
>
> Rebecca:
> Case has a good point here. I think I used this example once before: what if
> the reason you hopped up onto the stove was because the floor was covered
> with poisonous snakes and the stove is the only place to get away from them.
> Then the hot stove might be a higher quality perch than not being on the hot
> stove.
Agree. This is how it is on reflection but not at the most immediate level.
Your in with the snakes(not a great predicament), you don't think consciously,
"OK, now I am going to jump up on the stove"..
what happens in actuality is you simply follow "a vague sense of betterness" and suddenly find yourself on the stove. It's only upon reflection that you go,
"Gee, here's better than the snakes!"..
thus having made the comparison, after the fact. Dynamic Quality comes first, the patterns second.
It all relates to your other options - that's sort of what I'm
> getting at. You can't assign something a value unless you look at it in
> terms of something else.
>
>
> Comments, questions, inspirational messages?
> Rebecca
>
I think that you *can* assign something a value if you don't look at it in terms of something else. You'll remember, the Brujo followed "a vague sense of he knows not what", he wasn't doing things in
'relation' to what his tribe thought was good or bad, in fact you could say he was doing things 'in spite' of the patterns of the tribe. Yes, he may have explained his new found sense of good and
evil using the old language of the tribe, but not in a way that was 'in relation' to the old tribes patterns. Certainly if you wanted, one could compare what his thoughts of good and bad were to
those of the tribe, but such a comparison is second to Dynamic Quality - the source of all things.
(Apologies for the lateness of the reply)
-David.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 12 2005 - 07:08:12 GMT