[MD] The Relativist's journey

[118]

Hi Marsha,
All I was saying was that truth and individuals cannot be compared relatively, imo. Truth relative to the individual means, to me, what the individual takes to be true.  I don't think this is Relativism, but I am happy to be corrected on this.

Since your ontology cannot be divided, it cannot be subjected to Relativism.  In that we agree.

Any epistemology must use relative terms since it is a series of equations in the form of words; the words must relate.  However, that is a description and not the real thing.  I know you know this, this was for the benefit of others.

Mark

On Nov 24, 2011, at 11:34 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> corrected to make clearer...  
> 
> 
> On Nov 24, 2011, at 11:49 PM, 118 wrote:
> 
>> Hi Marsha,
>> If you mean that truth is derived from the individual, then I agree
>> wholeheartedly.  If you mean that there is some outside truth that is
>> interpreted differently by each individual, then I would say this goes
>> against MoQ.
>> 
> 
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> I mean 'individual' as in a flow of ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and impermanent, static patterns of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual value in the infinite field of Dynamic Quality.  I have the MoQ epistemologically relativistic as in static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns without independent existence.  And I have the MoQ ontologically indeterminate with Dynamic Quality as in indivisible, undefinable and unknowable.
> 
> 
> 
> 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