[MD] Kahneman

118 ununoctiums at gmail.com
Thu Dec 29 21:02:39 PST 2011 

Hi Marsha,
That is fine by me.  I have no idea what you are trying to say.  I'm sure it is just me.  I do my best to answer your questions, but maybe I missed some.  I only spend a few minutes on MoQ discuss.  I am more involved with Taoist forums at present.

Once you figure out how Relativism is important for Quality, I will do my best to understand what you are presenting.

The fact that somebody uses the word relative does not mean Relativism.  So your quotes do not make any sense to me.  I am dense, so bear with me.

Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark

On Dec 29, 2011, at 12:38 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> Mark,
> 
> Since you want to ignore what I wrote and the dictionary's philosophical definition of 'relativism' that I presented, I think I'll ignore you.  Maybe dmb should finish the discussions with Dan, Matt and Steve.  I think Steve is still waiting for dmb to present a definition of 'relativism'.  I found it interesting that he did not offer the "nutshell" version he presented to me... 
> 
> 
> Marsha 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Dec 29, 2011, at 2:36 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Marsha,
>> When you say relative to the observer do you mean created by the observer?  That I can buy.  When you say truth, do you mean opinion?  It would seem that you are speaking of an opinion.  If you mean something else by truth, you will have to explain it too me.  I have no idea what you are talking about anymore.
>> 
>> Just because the word relative is used, does not imply Relativism, see the posts by dmb.  Perhaps you are talking about interpretations, or visions.  Are any of these what you mean by truth?  If so, then look the word up in the dictionary that you use.
>> 
>> What do you mean by "all truth is relative"?  How do you know it is so?  Is your statement about all truth being relative one of your truths?  Is water being wet a relative truth?  Is my reading your post relative?  I know you are trying to make a point here, but you have me confused.
>> 
>> Sorry for all the questions.  I cannot judge the context of your quote.  What is Anthony referring to?  Be as specific as you want.
>> 
>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>> Mark
>> 
>> On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:33 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Mark,
>>> 
>>> Here you're long on opinion and short on explanation.  The relativism that dmb is complaining about is a particular anything-goes moral/cultural relativism.   There is nothing in the dictionary definition that I presented that confines relativism to that particular nasty brand.  SEP states that there are many types of relativism   For dmb to conflate and and obfuscate doesn't make it so.  There is nothing in the definition of relativism that prohibits evaluating truth/quality.   
>>> 
>>> Anthony, in the MoQ Textbook, 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.  I can produce statements where RMP in the SODV paper states Quality is going to be "different for everyone because each person has a different static pattern of life history."  It's James's pragmatism that is relativistic and RMP's MoQ that improves it.  Also there is the fact that RMP equates  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Marsha 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Dec 28, 2011, at 11:45 AM, 118 wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Marsha,
>>>> I have an opinion on this ( what a surprise).  In ZAMM Pirsig tries to explain why the conventional concept of truth may be leading us astray.  Thus he brings in the concept of Quality.  From that came MoQ, which is what this forum is about.  Relativism flies in the face of MoQ, which is what dmb has been trying to explain.
>>>> 
>>>> These are basic MoQ premises.  It does not make much sense to try to derail MoQ by reverting to Western ways.  Truth being relative is misconstrued on two counts.  Break your old habits and you may get on board the MoQ train, else wise you are sitting at the station watching it go by, and criticizing its color.  Once you hop on, it is quite a ride!
>>>> 
>>>> Got your ticket?
>>>> 
>>>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>>>> Mark
>>>> 
>>>> On Dec 27, 2011, at 10:45 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Steve,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't believe one needs to throw out the conventional use of the word 'truth' just because truth is relative.  I don't think relativism, philosophically speaking, is a "dirty word" or a "term of abuse".  Here is the definition:
>>>>> 
>>>>> ---
>>>>> relativism
>>>>> 
>>>>> noun Philosophy .
>>>>> any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativism). 
>>>>> --- 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Marsha:
>>>>> Certainly there is nothing in this definition of relativism that would render 'truth as relative' to be
>>>>> useless.  But let's look at the term 'relative'.
>>>>> 
>>>>> ---
>>>>> relative 
>>>>> 
>>>>> noun
>>>>> 1. a person who is connected with another or others by blood or marriage.
>>>>> 2. something having, or standing in, some relation to something else.
>>>>> 3. something dependent upon external conditions for its specific nature, size, etc. ( opposed to absolute).
>>>>> 4. Grammar . a relative pronoun, adjective, or adverb.
>>>>> 
>>>>> adjective 
>>>>> 5. considered in relation to something else; comparative: the relative merits of democracy and monarchy.
>>>>> 6. existing or having its specific nature only by relation to something else; not absolute or independent: Happiness is relative.
>>>>> 7. having relation or connection.
>>>>> 8. having reference or regard; relevant; pertinent (usually followed by to ): to determine the facts relative to an accident.
>>>>> 9. correspondent; proportionate: Value is relative to demand.
>>>>> 
>>>>> (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relative)   
>>>>> ---
>>>>> 
>>>>> Marsha:
>>>>> So, yes, the question is to what degree I consider Kahneman's theory to represent "truth".  I've already stated the theory is useful in one way because it challenges what we already think we know, but I will have to put a little more effort into its proper evaluation.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is there a problem with me using the term 'truth' in a conventional way?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Marsha
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Dec 27, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Steve Peterson <peterson.steve at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Why would you wonder if it is the truth when you've already decided that truth is relative? It is certainly true for him. The only question is whether it is true for you.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Dec 27, 2011, at 2:39 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Steve and Mark,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As I began reading the book, all I I could wonder was 'Is this the truth?'.   Does winning the nobel prize add credibility to it being the truth.  -  Seems like good story-telling though.  Worth considering since it challenges what we think we know.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Marsha
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Dec 27, 2011, at 2:04 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi Steve,
>>>>>>>> Thanks, I'll give it a read.  
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I will have to read it with some skepticism,
>>>>>>>> however, for that is what my intuition directs me to do.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
> 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

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list