[MD] in defence of the "relative"

[MarshaV]

Steve,

Isn't the category of 'absolutes' empty?  If so, then there is no dichotomy.
imho.     


Marsha



-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Steven Peterson
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 10:24 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] in defence of the "relative"

Hi Ron,

I don't know if you read the lexicon I posted, but if you do you'll
see that we are in agreement here. If vone wants to buy into the SOM
"absolutist-relativist" dichotomy, then the MOQ could be viewed as
taking both views simultaneously and thud denying the dichotomy.

Best,
Steve


On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:19 AM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
> you asked for the absolute measure of the good.
>
> Dynamic quality is the absolute measure.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Thu, November 12, 2009 10:12:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] in defence of the "relative"
>
>
> Ron,
>
> How can you define pre-intellectual experience as good if it is
> 'indivisible, undefinable and unknowable'?
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of X Acto
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 10:02 AM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] in defence of the "relative"
>
> make that pe-intellectual experience
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Thu, November 12, 2009 9:48:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] in defence of the "relative"
>
>
> Ron,
>
> Do you know of an absolute measure of the good?
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of X Acto
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 9:40 AM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] in defence of the "relative"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Marsha:
> The MoQ Dynamic Quality and static quality arise co-dependently as stated
in
> the following quote:
>
> "The reason there is a difference between individual evaluations of
quality
> is that although Dynamic Quality is a constant, these static patterns are
> different for everyone because each person has a different static pattern
of
> life history. Both the Dynamic Quality and the static patterns influence
his
> final judgment. That is why there is some uniformity among individual
value
> judgments but not complete uniformity."
>   (RMP, SODV)
>
>
> Marsha adds:
> This seems to indicate that the MoQ is relativistic based on
memory/history
> (static patterns) and the spontaneity of the moment (Dynamic Quality).
Both
> are present and co-dependent in every event.
>
> Ron:
> I don't think that can be argued, and it makes sense to me, the arguement
> that really
> is the contention, at least I think so, with relativism, is the charge
that
> "truth" and "good"
> is anything you like. Now, as Matt stated this could be a misunderstanding
> of meaning.
> As Steve pointed out Pragmatism is famously charged with this and the one
> Pirsig addrress
> that Matt feels was uncalled for.
>
> Now before we go any further, is this the subject of the discussion you
wish
> to follow?
> because if not, and your interest lies in co-dependancy, then I really
don't
> think you
> will get much disagreement. But on the notion that the "Good" is relative
to
> what you like,
> then there is some discussion to be had on the difference of opinions that
I
> feel is worth
> getting into.
> But on the subject of codependancy I think there are many who would agree.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>
>
>
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>
>
>
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>
>
>
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/