[MD] NYC

[118]

Marsha:
Yes, I agree.  My point is that you need to say: within "Your" MoQ,
not within "The" MoQ, or else you are not being consistent.  There is
no THE MoQ in a relative world.  These are your views, not the MoQ's
for such a thing does not exist in your world.  It would make The MoQ
absolute, which you do not like.  Get it?

If you are fond of relativism, then you should appreciate what I am
saying.  If you do not like relativism, then you can object with what
I am saying.  So what is it, do you agree or do you object?  Something
tells me you are going to say "mew", maybe I am psychic.

By the way, what relative frame of reference do you use for MoQ?

Cheers,
Mark

On 1/5/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 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
>