[MD] [Bulk] Re: Humanism

Sat Nov 13 09:38:41 PST 2010

There is an enormous difference in relativism and physikal relativity.
Relativism is in conflict with pragmatic realism, in conflict with
hyperrealism
Relativism, in my opinion, is not even a form of philosophy, it is a further

downscaling to philosophology, i concider relativism a a form and an
appearance
of Simplism.
It is an impossibility to import it or embed it within the Moq, or in any
other form of realism.
It cannot be used to deflate the model,or make it easier to understand.

To be honest , Marsha, i'l take nobody's word for granted, (Dmb's authority)
so since you launched this projection based upon Ant's formulation, and
Dave's answers on your questions, i submerged within the material, the
books, relativism,previous postings, etc.
I builded my case to take my position in this matter, not to approach the
conflict or to avoid it, neither to conflict it or to solve it,...in the
importance of making progress,my position demands not to conflict the
evidence.

This science , Marsha, philosophy, common sense, science and all that, are
not here to be taken under the arm and run uphill as fast as DMB can run, it
is all about trying to run uphill with the books under the arm, taking along
the others with us.

I agree that Dmb is capable of running uphill devastating fast, but i also
agree with myself, that he is really trying to take us along with him.

However, if someone chooses not to run at all, he will be left behind in the
end.

So , concluding,i agree with Dave's remark on the quote you are always
offering  from the moq textbook, ...and that is that Ant has chosen 1 or 2
words
a bit uncarefully.(i do not have to quote it back)
I agree with Dave.
On the point of the impossibility to import relativism in the moq or
pragmatism,
i agree with Dave.

* on the point of authority of DMB, i agree there is no one to have the full
authority here.
I never take his word for it , i check things out before i act, and when
ever the moment comes that he will make statements making no sense, or
statements
that are in conflict with the scientifical evidence, i will put a spoon up
his nose.

I have never found one inconsistency,-

greetzz, Andrie, thanks for the quote's about Zam, LILA.

read them well, Marsha, and observe Ant is conflicting this.

2010/11/13 MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>

> Adrie,
>
> That's bulls eyes...
>
> "Any philosophic explanation of Quality is going to be both false and true
> precisely because it is a philosophic explanation. The process of
> philosophic
> explanation is an analytic process, a process of breaking something down
> into subjects and predicates. What I mean (and everybody else means) by
> the word quality cannot be broken down into subjects and predicates. This
> is not because Quality is so mysterious but because Quality is so simple,
> immediate and direct."
>    (ZMM, Chapter 20)
>
>
> “…if Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then it becomes
> possible
> for more than one set of truths to exist. Then one doesn't seek the
> absolute Truth.'
> One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of things
> with the
> knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future this explanation must
> be taken
> provisionally; as useful until something better comes along. One can then
> examine
> intellectual realities the same way one examines paintings in an art
> gallery, not with
> an effort to find out which one is the 'real' painting, but simply to enjoy
> and keep
> those that are of value. There are many sets of intellectual reality in
> existence and
> we can perceive some to have more quality than others, but that we do so
> is, in part,
> the result of our history and current patterns of values.
>    (LILA, Chapter 8)
>
> Enjoy and keep those that are of value?  That sounds about right.   And
> that
> would be relative to one's "history and current patterns of value," not
> anyone's
> authority.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 13, 2010, at 5:44 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:
>
> > Bull's eye , Arlo.
> > i agree on all counts.
> >
> > 2010/11/13 ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>
> >
> >> [DMB]
> >> It's not honest to pick the one [as in quote] that suits you and ignore
> the
> >> rest.
> >>
> >> [Mark]
> >> Oh really dmb?  Is this coming from someone who uses a freely open
> >> encyclopedia
> >> to provide examples of truth?
> >>
> >> [Arlo]
> >> You would prefer he use a closed encyclopedia? Which one? Do you have a
> >> better
> >> site for providing a common frame of meaning?
> >>
> >> For the record, and this is merely restating Pirsig's own words, DMB has
> >> probably the most coherent understanding of Pirsig on the list, along
> with
> >> Ant,
> >> Dan and Horse. I may disagree with DMB on a few points, but when I do I
> >> don't
> >> fault him for being consistent with Pirsig's writings.
> >>
> >> Since you are here, I gather, due to an interest in Pirsig, can you tell
> me
> >> where you think DMB is wrong about Pirsig? Or are you arguing with DMB
> to,
> >> in
> >> effect, argue with Pirsig?
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > parser
> > 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
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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
>

-- 
parser