[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 7:58 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>> 
> 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