[MD] Truth and Relativity 2.9.9

[Ian Glendinning]

Mark,
No it wasn't you who coined "relationalism" here.
What question ?
Shove your personal "even if you're not ..." insults where the sun don't shine.
Ian



On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:58 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ian,
> Yes, clarity and consistency.  The dependent arising is no different
> from the modern scientific exploration of what things are made up of.
> As it is we go ever deeper into the "sub-atomic" and find more.
> Science is trying to find an end to this dependent arising, a unifying
> substance from which all else is created.  Of course this is nonsense,
> and any simple understanding of Buddhist thought will tell one that.
> It is a self defeating search that science is embarked on.  This I am
> sure you can see this, even if you are not a scientist.
>
> Perhaps you do not know the meaning of relationalism.  It is certainly
> not what Wiki claims it to be.  A reading of posts which I have
> presented in this forum may clear that up for you.  As far as I know,
> I brought the term into MoQ, although I have never bothered to do a
> word search of the archives for this Proper Noun.  What, in your
> understanding, does Relationalism mean?  Perhaps we can get to the
> heart of your misunderstanding.  There is nothing branding about the
> term, unless you only exist in the sq world.  Open up your eyes, there
> is more than simply meets the eyes.  It takes effort and is not simply
> given to you by words on a page.
>
> Of course you can always ignore the question I asked you.  There is
> some bliss in ignorance.  Unfortunately, metaphysics is not for the
> weak at heart.
>
> Best of luck,
> Mark
>
> On 2/16/12, Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Weird - I see only clarity and consistency - in the relational nature
>> of existence.
>>
>> Surely "dependent arising" is pretty standard buddhist take on
>> causation - a view shared by many long since departed MD posters -
>> nothing whatsoever to do with "relativism". I seem to remember
>> Pirsig's mutual "valuing" language for causation being branded
>> "relationalism" round these parts.
>>
>> I'll get me coat.
>> Ian
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 6:17 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Howdy MOQers:
>>>
>>> There is relativity in the Einsteinian sense and there is relativity is
>>> the "anything goes" sense, but Watts is talking about relativity in
>>> neither of those senses. He's making a point about the RELATIONAL nature
>>> of existence. He's saying that "things" are what they are by virtue of
>>> being tangled up in a total situation, in a context, in RELATION to all
>>> other "things". "They exist in relation to each other," he says. As you
>>> can see here, Watts goes on to explain this sense of relativism:
>>>
>>> "... Indeed, it would be best to drop the idea of causality and use
>>> instead the idea of relativity. For it is still inexact to say that an
>>> organism “responds” or “reacts” to a given situation by running or
>>> standing, or whatever. This is still the language of Newtonian billiards.
>>> It is easier to think of situations as moving patterns, like organisms
>>> themselves. Thus, to go back to the cat (or catting), a situation with
>>> pointed ears and whiskers at one end does not have a tail at the other as
>>> a response or reaction to the whiskers, or the claws, or the fur. As the
>>> Chinese say, the various features of a situation “arise mutually” or imply
>>> one another as back implies front, and as chickens imply eggs—and vice
>>> versa. They exist in relation to each other like the poles of the magnet,
>>> only more complexly patterned."
>>>
>>> Because of this kind of kind murky confusion, which is fairly constant, I
>>> think it would be very unwise for anyone to take MOQ lessons from Marsha.
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: valkyr at att.net
>>>> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 03:51:25 -0500
>>>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [MD] Truth and Relativity 2.9.9
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For those Alan Watts fans, he writes "it would be best to drop the idea
>>>> of causality and use instead the idea of relativity."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From 'THE BOOK: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are' by Alan Watts
>>>>
>>>> "As soon as one sees that separate things are fictitious, it becomes
>>>> obvious that nonexistent things cannot "perform" actions. The difficulty
>>>> is that most languages are arranged so that actions (verbs) have to be
>>>> set in motion by things (nouns), and we forget that rules of grammar are
>>>> not necessarily rules, or patterns, of nature. This, which is nothing
>>>> more than a convention of grammar, is also responsible for (or, better,
>>>> "goeswith") absurd puzzles as to how spirit governs matter, or mind moves
>>>> body. How can a noun, which is by definition not action, lead to action?
>>>>
>>>> "Scientists would be less embarrassed if they used a language, on the
>>>> model of Amerindian Nootka, consisting of verbs and adverbs, and leaving
>>>> off nouns and adjectives. If we can speak of a house as housing, a mat as
>>>> matting, or of a couch as seating, why can't we think of people as
>>>> "peopling," of brains as "braining," or of an ant as an "anting?" Thus in
>>>> the Nootka language a church is "housing religiously," a shop is "housing
>>>> tradingly," and a home is "housing homely." Yet we are habituated to ask,
>>>> "Who or what is housing? Who peoples? What is it that ants?" Yet isn't it
>>>> obvious that when we say, "The lightning flashed," the flashing is the
>>>> same as the lightning, and that it would be enough to say, "There was
>>>> lightning"? Everything labeled with a noun is demonstrably a process or
>>>> action, but language is full of spooks, like the "it" in "It is raining,"
>>>> which are the supposed causes, of action.
>>>>
>>>> "Does it really explain running to say that "A man is running"? On the
>>>> contrary, the only explanation would be a description of the field or
>>>> situation in which "a manning goeswith running" as distinct from one in
>>>> which "a manning goeswith sitting." (I am not recommending this primitive
>>>> and clumsy form of verb language for general and normal use. We should
>>>> have to contrive something much more elegant.) Furthermore, running is
>>>> not something other than myself, which I (the organism) do. For the
>>>> organism is sometimes a running process, sometimes a standing process,
>>>> sometimes a sleeping process, and so on, and in each instance the "cause"
>>>> of the behavior is the situation as a whole, the organism environment.
>>>> Indeed, it would be best to drop the idea of causality and use instead
>>>> the idea of relativity."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>> 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