[MD] Relativism, a definition

Tue Jan 3 00:16:44 PST 2012

Mark,

I have no wish to convince you that 'relativism' is important to the MoQ.  

Marsha

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:12 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> Yes I have read the book, it is on my shelf.  I believe we are beyond the simplistic explanations which Hagen delivers.  There are not really two truths.  They are simply a method for explaining how to think in order to "get it".
> 
> Everything is direct experience because it happens in the present.  Forming or remembering a concept is about as direct as it gets, since it can only happen right Now.  To think otherwise is just pretending that it is not and that somehow we can separate ourselves from direct perception.  I tell you it is impossible.  The two truths are an illusion.  Mindfulness can help one realize that.  In the meantime you are just fooling yourself.
> 
> But if we use Hagen's presentation, it would seem to me that discussing MoQ is not just "day to day" thoughts we can easily discuss.  MoQ is more about ultimate truth.  I am not saying that the concepts of MoQ are ultimate, just like what Hagen writes is not ultimate truth.  What I am saying is that contemplation through MoQ can bring one to becoming that Ultimate or direct perception.  The end result of MoQ is exactly the same as the end result of Buddhism.
> 
> Therefore I find it somewhat trivial to try to relate to MoQ in relative terms.  Such terms are fine for planning a fishing trip, but not for discussing the nature of reality.  I think Hagen would agree with me on that.
> 
> So, you haven't convinced me that relativism is important to MoQ.  Perhaps one day you will agree with me.  I can wait, and continue to read your opinions on that matter.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
> Mark
> 
> On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:56 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> Mark,
>> 
>> Both relativism and pragmatism are intellectual static patterns of value.  Just as pragmatism has had its cultural/philosophical ups-ans-downs, ins-and-outs and was pretty much dead-in-the-water, it is presently having a revival, so too may the fearful be silenced when it comes to relativism.  
>> 
>> 
>> "While I am thinking about it there is a very good book on Buddhism recently out called 'Buddhism, Plain and Simple', by Steve Hagen and published by Tuttle Publishing. I recommend you get it because it shows the similarities, between the MOQ and Zen Buddhism more clearly than any other I have seen."
>>               (Pirsig to McWatt, May 6th 1998.)
>> 
>> From Steve Hagen's book:
>> 
>> "Nagarjuna, the brilliant Buddhist philosopher of second-century India, wrote,
>> 
>>      Those who do not understand the distinction between
>>       [the] two truths do not understand the profound truth
>>      embodied in the Buddha's message.
>> 
>> "These two truths are relative and Absolute Truth.
>> 
>> "Relative truths are the day-to-day things and thoughts we can easily discuss, teach sell, and conceptualize.  These include simple facts --- a foot is twelve inches, oranges contain vitamin C, Mount McKinley is in North America.  But feet, inches, oranges, rocks, birds, feelings and thoughts, are themselves also relative truths.  Each one depends on a vast multiplicity of other things, other concepts, other relative truths for its existence --- an existence which is, of course, one hundred percent conceptual. 
>> 
>> "Relative truths are the concepts we use to get an easy handle on the world.  They help us in our everyday lives with a huge variety of practical matters.  But the more closely we look at them, the less Real they show themselves to be.
>> 
>> "Nevertheless, relative truths aren't to be avoided.  They're not necessarily evil, or harmful, or wrong.  Indeed, they're essential.  In order to get through the day, we need to know things --- telephone numbers, store hours, potatoes, growing seasons, fractions, love, speed limits, how to fasten shoes.  We run into trouble when we forget that all these things, thoughts, and feelings are relative --- that they are not Real, independent entities at all.  They exist only in relation to other things, thoughts, and feelings.  When we refer to "this book," that is a relative truth.  And we've already seen that the more closely we examine what "this book" is, the more we can't pin it down, and the more the "truth" of it dissipates like a morning mist after sunrise.
>> 
>> "Relative truths are why we fight wars, why we fear people who aren't like us, and why we debate the abortion question but come no closer to a resolution of it. 
>> 
>> "Ultimate Truth, on the other hand, is direct perception.  And what is directly perceived (as opposed to conceived) is that no separate, individualized things exist as such.  There's nothing to be experienced but this seamless, thoroughgoing relativity and flux.
>> 
>> "In other words, there are no particulars, but only _thus_.
>> 
>> "Ultimate Truth can't be conceptualized or imagined.  You cannot hold Ultimate Truth in your mind at all.  You can _see_ It.  You just can't hold It as an idea.  
>> 
>> "Ultimate Truth appears the same to all who _see_.  It can't be countered or doubted or discounted because it is immediate, direct experience itself.  It's not other-dependent.  It has no "other."  What's ultimately True can't be held in opposition to something else.  
>> 
>> "We can actually _see_ this.  We can (and, in fact, we do) _see_ for ourselves, right now, Ultimate Truth, and Reality.  Our only problem is that we ignore what we _see_.”
>> 
>> -------------
>> 
>> (Hagen, Steve, ‘Buddhism: Plain and Simple’, pp.142-143)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On Jan 1, 2012, at 2:33 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Marsha,
>>> Yes it is a dirty word if you think about it.  It denies Quality being absolute.  I believe your stand is nonsense, at least in terms of MoQ.  You obviously choose not to understand my posts, since you do not discuss my questions.  This is a head in the sand approach by you similar to misguided Christians who just keep throwing out verses from their Good Book.  Got any more scripture for me?  What does the great Pumba say?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>>> Mark
>>> 
>>> On Dec 31, 2011, at 10:40 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Mark, 
>>>> 
>>>> I didn't say anything of the sort.  Actually, I originally used the word 'relativism' in response to Steve, where I merely stated "I don't believe one needs to throw out the conventional use of the word 'truth' just because truth is relative.  I don't think relativism, philosophically speaking, is a "dirty word" or a "term of abuse"."   And, the reinterpretation as presented below, is like your opinion: nonsense.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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