[MD] The Relativist's journey

[MarshaV]

Okay, truth is seen as relative within the MoQ, relative to the individual like in special relativity and general relativity.

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 24, 2011, at 8:24 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> 
> Yes, certainly do not reject a term without consideration.  The goal
> is to evaluate what is useful towards imparting meaning to MoQ.  This
> is what is meant by philosophical discussion.  Along those lines, we
> could consider the analogies provided by the Catholic Church as worthy
> of consideration.  Perhaps the notion that Christ died on the Cross
> has meaning within MoQ.  If, after discussion, we agree that it should
> not, then we omit it.  Any such rejection can always be revisited by
> anyone if a reasonable case is put forth.
> 
> dmb is providing such consideration to the term of Relativism which he
> finds not compatible with MoQ.  If you have your reasons to consider
> it compatible, explain why, as you do with the post copied below.  You
> may have to continue to provide rhetoric in different ways as to why
> it is important.  However, you should give the same consideration to
> Greek Orthodoxy which has much in common with MoQ.  Do not summarily
> reject the preachings of St. Paul without evaluation.  The same can be
> said for Hinduism, Buddhism, Protestantism, Capitalism and so forth.
> What the aim is, is to bring value to MoQ and make it a world
> philosophy.
> 
> Just for clarification, the Quantum point-of-view does not include
> relativity.  This is because the concept of Relativity does not find
> much usefulness in Quantum physics.  However, if you feel that
> relativity does belong in Quantum physics, then by all means, provide
> your reasons.  Relativity is used in the General Theory of Relativity,
> and its more specific application in terms of moving clocks which is
> termed the Special Theory of Relativity.  You probably know this since
> you are fond of bringing physics into the mix.  The metaphysical
> implications of the General Theory are unclear, although Godel tried
> to do just that.  He attempted to bridge the notion of time as it is
> seen by cosmologists, that is a fabric know as "space-time", and our
> intuitive knowledge of time.  His result was that time cannot exist.
> These are the difficulties when trying to apply concepts in physics
> (that is the introduction of artificial systems of measurement) to
> what we term metaphysics.
> 
> I look forward to more discussions on why you feel Relativism is
> important to MoQ.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:31 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> As philosophy grapples with the implications of quantum physics, new points-of-view are evolving which challenge scientific materialism.  Consciousness is being released from its confinement in the brain.  Special relativity, general relativity, superposition, nonlocality, complementarity are new concepts being explored.  When 'relativity' is such an important consideration in the new physics, it would be foolish to reject the therm.  I am not trying to exclude any term.  It's the small-minded who are trying to conflate, confuse and reject a term.  I am not trying to label the MoQ as a form of Relativism.  Truth is seen as relative within the MoQ, relative to the individual like in the Quantum point-of-view.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 
>> 
>> 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