[MD] Social Intellectual

[MarshaV]

On Jul 22, 2010, at 12:12 PM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> Marsha said: 
> ...because RMP has clearly stated that there are many truths, and in regards to philosophy a position can be both true and false, and that truth is relative, I am correct to stick with what I know from my own experience.
> 
> dmb says:
> 
> Well, Marsha, as I keep pointing out, you have confused Buddhism with fascism.

Marsha:
Do you think so?


> Your understanding of the MOQ turns it into relativist nightmare. Like I said to John, you have confused diversity with promiscuity. I mean, wanting lots of different opinions is not the same thing as dropping our standards of quality to accommodate every opinion. That's just intellectual debauchery. 

Marsha:
And like I've said to you, what you think matters little to me, though I wish you well.

> 
> "If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth ... then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity... From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable." (Benito Mussolini, 1921)

Marsha:
Geez...  


> Part of the problem is that you define static patterns as ever-changing. That's like defining stable to mean unstable. It's just plainly wrong. There is DQ and there is sq and "ever-changing" is a good description of just one of them and it isn't the latter. There is a 50-50 chance of getting that right but you blew it. 

Marsha:
You think about however it works for you.  I will continue to explore my 
own understanding.


> This is a philosophy forum, you know? Killing static intellectual patterns has it's place but not during a philosophy discussion. That would be like touting the virtues of fasting during a feast or expressing the joy of dance at a funeral. It's just insensitive to the point of obliviousness. It's like pooping in the punch bowl. You might feel liberated but that's not enlightenment. You're using "meditation" as cover so you don't have to play by the same rules as everyone else. 
>  
> You're too enlightened for philosophy? Jeez, I think you flatter yourself way too much.


Marsha:  
I'm not enlightened, but I am wise enough to know I don't know.  



 
___