[MD] Marsha's Relativism

[Jan-Anders]

I think there are a lot of "slaveries" and there are a lot of patterns.

A pattern that leads do disaster is a conventional truth in itself but 
it may be bad quality because it leads the user of it to disaster.

A nation with a common law that is hindering bank systems to work 
effieciently will lead to disaster because it is impossible to build up 
an industry. People in this nation will envy other nations with 
efficient banks and good economy.They cannot tolerate the difference 
because they think that they are already right.

There are always three sides of the coin. Quantity, Currency and Value. 
All are different an undependent of the other but still you got to 
understand and balance all three to be able to buy a dancing ticket.


Jan-Anders

>
> t/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> Greetings Steve,
>
> My understanding of truth has a more Buddhist flavor.  All static patterns
> of value are what the Buddhist call Conventional truth, not Absolute Truth,
> but true by convention based on experience.  A pattern's truth is relative
> to experience, or each experience represents its own truth.  Your questions
> seem a request for a universal truth that doesn't make sense to me because
> truth is related to experience.  
>
> Is there only one slavery?   
>    
>
> Marsha   
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Steve Peterson
> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 11:23 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Marsha's Relativism
>
> Hi Marsha,
>
> I wasn't setting up a trap or anything, but I can see how it could  
> look like I was trying to do some Socratic B.S. I was really just  
> trying to help clarify what it is we are talking about.
>
> I think dancing is just fine. Can you think of doing philosophy as  
> dancing? Among guys it does probably seem like a battle some times,  
> or a game with winners and losers, but maybe it can be a dance.
>
> I am interested in your interest with multiple truths, and I still  
> wonder if you mean something like "(2) X is true for Bob but not true  
> for Rich" or maybe something like "(5) Bob is justified in believing  
> X while Rich is justified in believing Y and X and Y are both  
> statements about slavery and are both true."
>
> But if all this is boring relative to you though it is interesting  
> relative to me I will understand.
>
> Best,
>   
>