[MD] The Relativist's journey

[MarshaV]

Static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns.  Patterns depend on innumerable causes and conditions (patterns), depend on parts and the collection of parts (patterns), depend on conceptual designation (patterns). Voila!  Patterns have no independent existence.

Sent from my iPad. 
On Nov 28, 2011, at 3:29 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> Mark,
> 
> You have ignored my returned questions in most of our discussions for many months, as if your interests trump mine. I am tired of what feels like an one-sided interrogation.  I feel no need to acknowledge your questions.  I will respond only when I do.  
> 
> I do not hold the view that all patterns, being relative, are equal.  According to the MoQ, which has truth (patterns)as relative, patterns may be evaluated based on whether they function as inorganic, biological, social or intellectual events/processes.  The term 'relativism', and there are many types within the domain of philosophy, does not inherently exist as 'all being equal.'.  
> 
> 
> Marsha 
> 
> p.s.  All theory, including quantum theory, has a metaphysical underpinning.  Quantum theory is the newest and most dynamic, and still in-process.  A form of relativism may one day have its own revival.  imho 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Nov 28, 2011, at 2:28 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Marsha,
>> I thought I answered your questions as they came up, but I guess I thought wrong.  My apologies.
>> 
>> Non-locality falls out of the statistical nature of quantum mechanics.  Sociology treats individuals as statistics which means the individual does not exist locally.  It is simply a product of the math used.  Nothing cosmic going on there, unless one is wedded to math.  Then I suppose one would be convinced that the math is reality.
>> 
>> Your "stable pattern are relative only if you want to see them that way.  I do not see them that way.  There is no need to always be comparing everything.  I find that approach to be limited.  But, if you have a love for equations, then I can see your need to equate things.  Each to his/her own.  I do not consider my view to be relative to yours.
>> 
>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>> Mark
>> 
>>