[MD] [Bulk] Re: Emptiness & Quantum Mechancics

[MarshaV]

On Oct 10, 2010, at 4:49 AM, Andre Broersen wrote:

> Marsha to dmb:
> 
> It's a matter of interpretation.  My primary mission is not to support  'contemporary pragmatism'.
> Your approach is your approach,  Mine is different.  You can flap you gums all you want; it makes
> no difference to me.  The text I choose you redefine to suit your support of contemporary pragmatism,
> and act as if you have channeled RMPs  thoughts.  For instance where it is stated that truth is seen
> as relative.
> 
>    Anthony writes:
>    ?Intellectual values include truth, justice, freedom, democracy and,
>    trial by jury. It?s worth noting that the MOQ follows a pragmatic
>    notion of truth so truth is seen as relative in his system while
>    Quality is seen as absolute.  In consequence, the truth is defined
>    as the highest quality intellectual explanation at a given time.
>           (McWatt,Anthony,MOQ Textbook)
> 
> 
> You seem to ignore evidence that doesn't suit your argument, or redefine it.  I don't buy your strategy.
> 
> Andre:
> Marsha, of late, has used the above quote to defend her notion of truth as relative, and, more importantly
> that truth, in the MOQ, is treated as a relative term.
> 
> Firstly she states that 'My primary mission is NOT to support 'contemporary pragmatism'. (my emphasis).
> However, Anthony's quote most definately states that the 'MOQ follows a pragmatic notion of truth...'.
> 
> This immediately dismisses the import of the use of this quote.

Marsha:
I support being pragmatic.  I support the pragmatic notion of truth within the MoQ's which 
evaluates static patterns of value based on their position within the evolutionary, hierarchical, 
four-level structure.  Regardless, the statement still indicates that "truth is seen as relative."  I 
can offer other quotes also that indicate that truths (spov) are relative.  Dmb just doesn't  like 
the word.  He'd prefer a different word based on his trying to squeeze the MoQ into a 
'Contemporary Pragmatism' box.


> Andre:
> Marsha says: 'Your(or for that matter the MOQ) approach is your (or the MOQ) approach. Mine is different.
> 
> Thus Marsha is not interested in the MOQ approach to truth claims.

Marsha:
An MoQ claim has been made that "truth is seen as relative' within RMP's MoQ.


> Andre:
> Further, she also (conveniently?) fails to acknowledge a reference to a footnote contained in the same
> quote which occurs at the end of the '...Quality is seen as absolute' sentence. This footnote says: 'The
> pragmatic notion of truth is examined further in Section 2.7'.
> 
> As stated above, Marsha is not in support of pragmatism, let alone a 'pragmatic notion of truth'.
> 
> So how she can use a quote, which she rejects herself, to validate her own stance on the relative nature of
> truth is beyond me.


Marsha:
Buddhism also uses a pragmatic (Middle Way) notion of truth: that things arise into being dependent on 
causes and conditions.  I have already stated I support a pragmatic notion of truth.  But that doesn't 
mean I am going to adopt dmb's notion of Contemporary Pragmatism.  I have repeatedly stated I am 
study the MoQ as a bridge between East and West.


 
___