[MD] relative

[MarshaV]

Tuukka,

I suppose your certainty is a Western attitude, but I do wonder on what it is based?  You know all about the future for the West, the Uni, and Western scholars.  That's quite remarkable!   So glad to have given you the opportunity to offer such great foresight and wisdom.  Your brilliance is amazing.  But to repeat what I wrote yesterday, my explorations and definition of 'static patterns of value' are based on my understanding of static quality and Buddhism's conventional (relative) truths.  If it doesn't work for you, please ignore it.  I'll do the same with what you present.  Thanks.


Marsha
 


Sent from my iPad

On Jan 7, 2012, at 3:35 PM, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:

> Marsha,
> 
>> Marsha said:
>> 
>> The subject line might have been misleading.  I have not stated that the MoQ is a form of Relativism.  For me the MoQ is ontologically indeterminate and epistemologically relativistic.
> 
> Tuukka:
> Because of DQ, ontologically inteterminate is (according to me) correct. Epistemological relativism is correct in the Western sense, if taken into account that knowledge is not relative to other knowledge but to ontology. It is also correct if knowledge is relative to other knowledge if "relativism" is perceived in the Buddhist way. A computer scientist, on the other hand, would say that in MOQ, the relation of knowledge to other knowledge forms a context-free language, as opposed to a finite-state machine.
> 
>> Marsha: Also you need to read a little farther than the Diamond Sutra.
> Tuukka:
> Sure
>> Marsha:
>> 
>> 
>> “Intellectual values include truth, justice, freedom, democracy and, trial by jury. It’s worth noting that the MOQ follows a pragmatic notion of truth so truth is seen as relative in his system while Quality is seen as absolute.  In consequence, the truth is defined as the highest quality intellectual explanation at a given time.
>>      (McWatt,Anthony,MOQ Textbook)
> 
> Tuukka:
> The scholar will say it's a problem Quality can't be defined. And it can't be defined, because it includes DQ. Mind you, I'm not saying it's a problem, but the scholar will say so. To the scholar, I'd say:
> 
> "It’s worth noting that the MOQ follows a pragmatic notion of truth so conventional truth is seen as relative in his system while static quality is seen as absolute in the context of definable things. In consequence, the conventional truth is defined as the highest static quality intellectual explanation at a given time."
> 
> Paramattha-sacca will never be something they teach at Uni, because the Uni is a conventional facility. Maybe Uni is also a spiritual, creative, state of mind sort of thing and all that, but I'm now talking of the Uni that is an institution which hires people and dishes out degrees. The Uni will never be able to produce works that are about something else than the conventional truth, or if it can, it's an accident the Uni can't explain. If you're in the Uni, everything you do is judged by it's ability to be conventionally true, and if it also happens to be ultimately true, fine, but the Uni just can't accept things that are conventionally false but ultimately true, because there's nothing left of the Uni if they do that. It's just a machine or a game or a robot. And if your sausage machine does not produce kitty cats, and you want a kitty cat, it's not the fault of the sausage machine.
> 
> I didn't say that's what you're saying. I just wanted to point that out. IF we want to talk to the Uni or people who insist on conventional truth, that's what we have to say to them. They don't WANT to hear about DQ in that form, maybe because they are afraid of it, and we can't just shove that down their throats. Better try to find a common ground. I'm sure many people are afraid of DQ even though they don't have a word for it. And if you spend enough time with someone, maybe you come up with a non-threatening way of talking about DQ to them.
> 
> I mean, Gödel's incompleteness theorems were almost a proof of the existence of DQ in the field of mathematics. Almost hundred years ago, when Gödel presented his work, what did people do? Did they come to hug him and say he did a really good job? Not by a long shot. They were just terrified. Still he was one of the most important mathematicians who ever lived.
> 
> And actually, maybe, just maybe, you can even take out the "almost" in the first sentence of the previous paragraph.
> 
> It's also possible to talk about DQ to academic people, but in that context, you may never build any definitions on DQ. So you may not say: "It’s worth noting that the MOQ follows a pragmatic notion of truth so truth is seen as relative in his system while Quality is seen as absolute." The scholar, if competent in any conventional sense, will insist that is absolutely not worth noting. The human inside him - you know, the one who might enjoy poetry without taking an elitist analytic approach to it - might enjoy that, but the scholar he's supposed to act like will not.
> 
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> "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 'Buddhism: Plain and Simple':
>> 
>>  "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_.”
>> 
> 
> Tuukka:
> Thank you so much for all this, Marsha! This is a very useful read. But I wish the Buddhists would stop talking about relativism. It _will_ confuse Westerners in a way that is simply unnecessary. Why can't they speak of recursion? Or self-deteminism?
> 
> I will probably use some of these snippets in my article. At least as long as I haven't read the book itself. But I have so much to read now I can't immediately take yet another reading project. I try to read but I'm not one of those people who have a habit of reading. It's always because of the book itself and not because of the habit. If I don't know why I'm reading something, I just don't read it. This doesn't prevent me from reading excruciatingly dull books, such as "Rationality" by Rescher... I happened to want to read it... but that's another story.
> 
> Marsha said:
> 
> And for good luck:
> 
> The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths differentiates between two levels of truth (Sanskrit: satya) in Buddhist discourse: a "relative" or commonsense truth (Pāli: sammuti sacca), and an "ultimate" or absolute, spiritual truth (Pāli: paramattha sacca).
> 
> Tuukka:
> 
> This again gives a whole lot of things to think about. But I won't put them here now.
> 
> 
> 
> -Tuukka