[MD] Relativism

[Jan-Anders]

Hi Mark

Relativism is interesting but I think it's still just another 
one-dimensional truth.

The MOQ has three classes and this is about one of them. I called this 
the expression, how something is expressed to something else, the 
recieved impression. The bubbles of being in time are bouncing around 
with each other. Like flashes of light in the dark they shine through 
the most and some have the right frequency to interact with another.

There are also energy in the space that comes together by gravitation 
and grow. Still it's a lump of mass. Depending on the weight the 
relation to the scale is changed. Big masses can slow down the time. 
Einstein dimension.

Masses are moving around, Planck-oriented. Relations are different 
depending of the movement and speed. The hot stove doesn't make a good 
quality relation to someone sitting on it. Room tempered is better. 
Slower vibration of the molecules in it. Good piece of heavy metal music.

br

Jan-Anders




------------------------------
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 11:17:50 -0800
> From: 118<ununoctiums at gmail.com>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Humanism
> Message-ID:
> 	<AANLkTino9_8EQwjuF=yoNcLXiZUfL8O_54d8hW11cQKA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hi dmb,
> I assume that SEP is the Stanford site.  Typically in the sciences we
> provide a reference for a quote, a web page would be appreciated.  I have
> deleted the quote for size reasons.
>
> I also assume you chose this passage because of the beyond relativism part.
>   As such, you would say that MOQ falls within this category.  One must use
> the concept of relativism to get beyond it, thus the traps.  So, even if
> truth is relative to the observer, what you suggest is that truth is
> directional, like a vector..  It is that directionality that MOQ points
> towards.  Please correct me if I am wrong so far.  Again, I have to assume
> what you are thinking because you do not present it.  When we seek to define
> Quality, we are concerned about falling into traps.  Are you suggesting that
> such traps are detrimental and can not be used to further an understanding
> of Quality?  I am not trying to put words into your mouth, but I have little
> to go on here from you.
>
> This directionality, that I have to assume you are subscribing to, can be
> outside the relative side of description.  MOQ presents the levels as
> epistemological evidence for direction.  This is borrowing from the analogy
> in biology of evolution.  Of course, bringing evolution requires some
> definition of terms and cannot be simply subjected to "we all know what
> evolution is".  I would claim to know many more details concerning the
> biological paradigm of evolution.  Such levels are also considered to be one
> of control (please correct me if you do not subscribe to this).  As such,
> you would say that the intellectual level should have justification to
> control the societal level.  Personally I do not think this follows from an
> understanding of Quality being pre-conceptual.  What say you?
>
> The continuity of a metaphysics from previous metaphysics such as James is
> appropriate as a path towards understanding.  The continuity from other
> philosophies is also appropriate.  We live in an age where such comparison
> can be done without getting up and going to the library or talking to a
> philosophy professor.  When there is a break in paradigm from the proposed
> Western thought to something different, and when this brings a metaphysics
> back to pre-socratic days, as is explained in ZMM, it is possible to bring
> in many philosophies since all tie together.  In this way the introduction
> of Buddhism is appropriate, as is the discussion of Vedic thought.  One
> cannot say that, because it has similarities with radical empiricism it must
> be presented that way, again, due to lack of input, I have to assume this is
> where you are coming from.  MOQ cannot be fit into a hard shell in that way
> and provide its future direction, imo.  If you do believe this is correct on
> my part, I would like to learn why.
>
> I prefer the concept of relationalism.  I do not like what Wiki has to say
> about this, and I would direct anybody interested to:  Relationalism.org. to
> start.  I do not draw completely from this idea, but it provides some kind
> of foundation for discussion.  In particular, the extract of a paper from J.
> Kaipayil,
>
> http://relationalism.org/Documents/Excerpt%20from%20Relationalism.pdf.
>
> This extract also provides some of the notions that I have been presenting
> in terms of the basic similarity between science and metaphysics.
>
> Perhaps this should be a new subject, and I have tried to introduce my
> concept of relationalism into the group by incorporating Quality.  In this
> sense I do not necessarily agree completely with the site I just presented.
>   It is my feeling that the existence of objects can be presented more
> fundamentally through metaphysics.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 9:33 AM, david buchanan<dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Everything that follows comes from SEP's article on Relativism and I am not
>> going to tell anyone what it means because I think you should be able to see
>> that for yourself. Am I wrong to give people that much credit? I don't
>> really want to debate anyone who can't read and think for themselves. I
>> don't want to argue with anyone who resents the use of an encyclopedia or
>> anyone who feels persecuted by any kind of textual evidence. Any reader can
>> see that I picked these passages for a reason and a good reader will be able
>> to see what that reason is.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
> *******************************************
>