[MD] NYC

[MarshaV]

Mark,

I will only repeat: I see nothing within the definition of  'relative' or 'relativism' (philosophical view) that prevents assigning a value judgement.  Within the MoQ static patterns (knowledge/truth) are ranked by their evolutionary function: inorganic, biological, social or intellectual.  


Marsha


Sent from my iPad

On Jan 5, 2012, at 2:16 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> I believe what you meant to say, was that within "your" relative view
> of MoQ there is evolutionary ranking.  This is your relative position,
> and has no bearing on an absolute position of MoQ, since that cannot
> exist in a relativist view.  From your position of MoQ, how do you
> relate to other relative positions?  That is, what connection do you
> make to ascribe to MoQ as a whole?  Within your MoQ there are static
> patterns which you denote as knowledge/truth.  What does this mean to
> you within your relative structure?
> 
> Explaining that will give others an idea of what you mean.  Even if
> you provide quotes, this still does not provide one with your relative
> postion because the quotes are somebody else's position.  If you
> ascribe to another's position, it must be presented as a whole.  Their
> beef stew must be the same as your beef stew for it to taste the same.
> 
> So, my question again is how do you provide value assignment within a
> relative framework?  Does my question make sense to you?  If not, I
> will try to ask it a different way.  I need to understand your
> framework in order to pose it however.  What does the ranking mean to
> you?
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark
> 
> On 1/5/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Mark,
>> 
>> I see nothing within the definition of  'relative' or 'relativism' that
>> prevents assigning a value judgement.  Within the MoQ static patterns
>> (knowledge/truth) are ranked by their evolutionary function: inorganic,
>> biological, social or intellectual.
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>