[MD] Protagoras: everything is relative...

[MarshaV]

Hi Mark,

I consider static patterns of value from two different points of view.  One would be the nature of ALL patterns:  interdependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized.  A second would be by categorization according to their evolutionary function:  inorganic, biological, social and intellectual.  


Thank you.  

Marsha 
 
 
 
On Oct 27, 2011, at 12:43 PM, 118 wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> 
> Whatever, at least I now understand your foundational premise.  I can now read your posts with that understanding.  Let me know if it changes...
> 
> Mark
> 
> On Oct 27, 2011, at 9:31 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Oct 26, 2011, at 9:29 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Oct 26, 2011, at 12:05 PM, 118 wrote:
>>>>>> ,
>>>>>>>> Marsha:
>>>>>>>> Where did I say that ALL knowledge was intellectual in nature???  I never made such a claim.  You must be the one confused.  
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Mark:
>>>>>>> It was in the quotes you provided.  Perhaps you want to reconsider?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Marsha:
>>>>>> Provide the quotes!!!  I have never stated that all knowledge was from the intellectual level.   
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Oct 27, 2011, at 1:13 AM, 118 wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Mark:
>>>>> I may be mistaken, but those quotes you provide say many things.  It was the one which broke a car up into a set of seats.  Are you saying that that author was incorrect with his analogy?  If so, you should qualify the quotes you provide, otherwise I have to assume they are speaking for you.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha:
>>>> Provide my email with the quote!!!    
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>>> Mark:
>>> You know exactly what I am referring to.
>>> 
>>> But, now I know that when you speak of "knowledge" you are not referring to the intellectual variety.  I am glad we cleared this up, your use of quotes can be misleading, and sometimes I do not understand what point you are trying to make since you provide no explanation.
>>> 
>>> The James's quote refers to the conceptual variety.  If you see this differently, let me know.  And no, I do not have to remind you of what you posted by reading back to you your post.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Hi Mark,
>> 
>> Baloney!  
>> 
>> The quote is quite clear.  The James quote states "all knowledge" NOT "intellectual knowledge".  Have you been taking Dave Buchanan lessons again?  
>> 
>> 
>> “It was classic William James, imbued with a sense of the relativism of all knowledge, a respect for and curiosity about alternative perspectives, an instinct to analyze clearly and thoroughly but to develop a synthesis wherever possible, and a conviction that the truth of any idea or thing is best understood by observing its action in the world.
>> 
>> 
>> 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


 
___