[MD] Relativism

[118]

Hi Jan,
Discussion below,

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Jan-Anders <jananderses at telia.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> [Mark]
>
I think that relationalism can encompass what you are bringing up.  There is
relationalism within solid objects or energy, which I would term the
objective world.  There is also realationalism within the conceptual world
such as the quality of something, or the beauty of something.  The
relationalism describes what it is that we base choices on.  It is not the
objects or concepts in themselves, but the difference between such.  This
difference of whatever kind can be seen as dynamic quality.  It is what
touches us in our free will.  In my interpretation is it what is in between
that provides meaning.  Such a thing (dynamic quality?) can be studied on
its own through personal interpretation.  As such, it can bypass the
objective view.  Once it becomes discussed it must be objectified for there
is no other way at present.  Two people can listen to the same kind of
music.  The subsequent sharing of such music must put it into perspective
with adjectives and analogies.  As such, they are not describing the music,
but describing the quality of such music.

If Quality is directional which is how I interpret what other's post, the
objective discussion should encompass such direction.  It is easy to provide
words such as values or morality to such directions, but in my opinion this
is incomplete and contains a multitude of personal interpretations which
often cannot be reified.  Relationalism which diminishes the importance of
the objects may be one approach.

This discussion still remains under the subject of relativism, I think that
that is appropriate for the time being since relationalism has little
agreement at this point.  But it is certainly a possible antidote to
relativism, in my opinion.

Mark

>
>
>>>
>>> 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
>