[MD] The Level of Intellectual Quality

[X Acto]

Marsha,

I think it is proper to talk of Ultimate Truth rather than the Absolute, but, and I 
could be misunderstanding, Ultimate Truth is not separate from conventional 
truths.  Kind of like sq and DQ are interdependent.  

Ron:
Nagarjuna would agree, to speak of a concept, it must be understood in terms of related
concepts, a hanging together of ideas..when we use terms like ultimate and absolute
we mean the entirety of things, the whole of it. Kant argued if the conception of
such a thing is even possible, Nietzsche criticized Hegel for it..Aristotle charges Parmenides,
Buddha mocks the idea of it. 

As it applies to both the one and the many, unity and plurality, monism and relativism.

But they are criticizing how  that belief is formed, Aristotle makes a point similar
to Pirsig and James in that Absolute relativism neglects the good.










On Mar 4, 2010, at 12:20 AM, John Carl wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 10:18 AM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> I believe Pirsig would agree with W. James and Nagarjuna.
> 
> 
> 
> As would Royce and me, Ron.  Our case for an absolute is also the middle way
> - it's not the only thing there is, but  neither is it non-existent.  And as
> an existant, it pulls that moral compass toward better and better analogy.
> 
> 
> 
> John
> 
> 



___


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/md/archives.html