[MD] "knowing that" versus "knowing how"

[MarshaV]

 "... the best judgments ("truths") are tentative because they are appropriate only for particular situations and different judgments are needed when those situations change. This perspective is expressed more clearly in the Liezi:

Nowhere is there a principle which is right in all circumstances or an action that is wrong in all circumstances. The method we use yesterday we may discard today and use again in the future; there are no fixed right and wrong to decide whether we use it or not. The capacity to pick times and snatch opportunities, and be never at a loss to answer events belongs to the wise.

    If ethical relativism means denying a fixed moral standard by which to evaluate situations, one could hardly find a better formulation; yet the last sentence seems to confuse the issue again, by emphasizing a distinction that most contemporary versions do not reserve a place for. There is an important difference between the sage and the rest of us. Evidently it is not enough to defend such a relativistic position, or to be a relativist in practice, for those philosophers who accept relativism do not thereby become wise, and those who live relativistically do not thereby live wisely. Mahayana Buddhism makes a similar point with its doctrine of upaya, the "skillful means" with which the bodhisattva works for the liberation of all sentient beings, adopting and adapting whatever devices are suitable to the immediate task at hand, disregarding conventional moral codes and even the Buddhist precepts when necessary. This type of relativism too is reserved for beings who have attained a high level of spiritual development -- the Buddhist equivalent of a Daoist sage.

    The difference between them and us is that they are liberated by relativism, or into relativism, while the rest of us are more likely to become its victims, since the freedom it encourages panders to our preoccupation with satisfying insatiable desires. In other words, the difference is self. Those deluded by a sense-of-self are trapped in their own self-preoccupation; ethical relativism clears the way for such people to do whatever is necessary to get what they want. Since sages and bodhisattvas are liberated from self-preoccupation, because they do not experience others as objects whose well-being is distinct from their own, relativism frees them from the formal constraints that the rest of us seem to need and allows them to get on with the task of apparently saving all sentient beings while actually doing nothing at all (a paradox embraced by both traditions).

    If the issue of ethical relativism in the Zhuangzi cannot be understood without also considering the role of self, is that also the case for other types of relativism -- such as knowledge?"

 http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/101801.htm




Are you talking of an absolute "good quality" or something other?  Sorry, I am not a member of facebook so don't have access to the video.  Maybe you can explain what you mean. 


Marsha





On Dec 26, 2010, at 4:21 AM, Jan-Anders wrote:

> Hi Adrie and Marsha
> 
> This is an example of how something can have good quality in content but still the presentation is messed up by the form of it.
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=493477069259
> 
> An iPad would probably give it a higher quality as the total quality is composed by both the content and how it is presented.
> 
> JA



 
___