[MD] The Level of Intellectual Quality

[MarshaV]

On Mar 4, 2010, at 9:17 AM, X Acto wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marsha:
> I understand 'ultimate', as representing emptiness, being preferred 
> over 'absolute' because 'absolute' might suggest something that 
> exists in and of itself,independently.  Nothing is independent in the
> Madhayamika system, even emptiness.
> 
> Ron, I also think that equating relativism with 'Absolute relativism' is
> a red herring.  That patterns are relative doesn't equate to 'all is equal', 
> and doesn't prevent judgements based on what is useful. 
> 
> Ron:
> I agree, it is used most commonly as a perjorative term but it does
> introduce a legitimate consequence of adopting such a viewpoint
> so it does have it's value. 

Marsha:
What use is there in indiscriminately associating a pejorative connotation 
to a philosophic term?     


> 
> Marsha:
> Concerning relative truths (sq), what is bad is that which causes suffering 
> and what is good is that which removes suffering.  For me it isn't so 
> complicated.
> 
> 
> Ron:
> To me what is good is the attitude toward experience, suffering or not,
> whether in a shit storm or sunny field it's all good, just different levels of good
> some things are better than others...some experience I can influence
> some I can not, but it helps to be able to distinguish the difference and act
> on that distinction.
> 
> It is often said, that by embracing the value of suffering it removes it.


Marsha:
I will not disagree with you.  

Evolutionary levels might be an excellent way to determine static betterment, 
but ultimately Quality is all goodness.   



 




> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 4, 2010, at 8:15 AM, X Acto wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>