[MD] in defence of the "relative"

Thu Nov 12 07:58:46 PST 2009

Ron,

I cannot mind read the relevance of this post.  Is there any context to go
with it?

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 10:45 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] in defence of the "relative"

Dynamic Quality

----- Original Message ----
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Thu, November 12, 2009 10:38:30 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] in defence of the "relative"

Ron,

I have no knowledge of an Absolute.  You answered 'experience' to my
question: 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 10:27 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] in defence of the "relative"

Marsha:

How are you defining 'experience' as absolute?  What is your definition of
absolute?

Ron:
The absolute is undefineable if it is undefineable how may it be relative?
relativity requires definition. It requires form. Definition and form are
static
qualities.

-----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 10:00 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] in defence of the "relative"

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/