[MD] The Relativist's journey

[MarshaV]

Hello Mark,

On Nov 25, 2011, at 12:05 PM, 118 wrote:

> Hi Marsha,



> Mark:
> Well I guess this begs the question "where is the real?".

Marsha:
You brought the words "real thing" into the conversation.  When I wrote "There is no real thing.", I could be considering that you meant the word "thing" in an independent, objective sense, or I could be questioning your use of "real" as in an Absolute sense, or both.  Or maybe I should have disregarded your post,,, again.  


> Mark:
> Words are symbols, but perhaps what words convey outside the symbology is real.  

Marsha:
Haven't the slightest idea what this means.  


> Mark:
> If one lives in an unreal world, one is always searching.  

Marsha:
I live in a provisional, static world interacting with DQ to a varying degree.  I am sorry you are "always searching."  


> Mark:
> Such searching is also considered unreal, and meaningfulness is lost.  

Marsha:
What are you searching for?   


> Mark:
> What has meaning to you?  

Marsha:
It's all Value(Dynamic/static).  


> Mark:
> Is there something behind the facade? 

Marsha:
What facade?



Marsha 


> 
> On Nov 25, 2011, at 1:11 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Mark,
>> 
>> The MoQ as representing reality from an empirical point-of-view is Experience(unpatterned/patterned).  The MoQ as representing reality theoretically is epistemologically relative and ontologically indeterminate.  This is what is contained in my nutshell.  Words are not separate from static quality and only represent provincial truth.  There is no real thing.
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On Nov 25, 2011, at 3:48 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> ___


 
___