[MD] relative

Sun Jan 8 01:34:00 PST 2012

Marsha,

but that's no side track. You see, this is actually the way I _do_ 
philosophy. I talk with people in order to get new ideas myself, and I 
focus on details just to understand them.

Do you want a recap of what my system is about? Maybe you should read these:

History of the MOQ as I see it:

http://www.moq.fi/?p=6

How I originally arrived at my notion of recursive patterns, which 
later, with Matt's help, evolved into cyclical morality:

http://www.moq.fi/?p=106

Note that the latter page is slightly out of date with regards to 
naming. It also introduces a "Networking ontology" that as of now is 
poorly defined, and probably fig. 8. is wrong in that it does not 
correctly portray the relationship between networking ontology and other 
ontologies within recursive patterns. I'm working on this.

You asked on what my Western certainty is based on. I don't understand 
what you mean with that. I am that certainty. But I think a more 
appropriate word for it would be "faith". I think Wittgenstein's book 
"On Certainty" is a good book, and that's the book he wrote after giving 
up on the aim he set in Tractatus, according to which everything should 
be expressed with logically consistent language. Frankly, I am 
disappointed that you perceive me as a fool who embraces such certainty. 
And I don't understand why you gave me sarcastic compliments earlier. 
Compliments are a great thing to have, and if you introduce doubt to 
them, you are being quite mean. Do you understand I have sacrificed 
everything in my life that I needed to for this MOQ venture, which 
includes not having a job and not studying? So I think I don't deserve 
that. Many people could live like me, but apparently they don't want to, 
so why should someone be envious if I get a lot of compliments? Why are 
you being mean? Isn't it you who are sidetracking this conversation? I 
saw a dream of you last night. You were creating here something others 
didn't understand at first, but then they understood better. Are you 
envious of me or why are you being sarcastic? I don't want that. It 
wasn't a very nice way of waking up this morning to have a social level 
argument with you accusing me of getting sidetracked after being fakely 
glad for me for my foresight. Why can't everyone in this discussion 
board, and not just me, get sidetracked when they want to? I don't have 
a reputation of doing that to the point of distracting and disturbing 
conversations.

You are much respected at LS, Marsha. So is Skutvik. So what's the 
pattern here? If someone is respected at LS, and they run into me, they 
will at first have an argument with me? You know, the kindergarden-type 
of argument. I haven't really had such arguments, or any kind of 
disappointing or "dirty-feeling" arguments, with any other type of 
person in the MOQ community. I could have had one with Tim right after 
we met, but he didn't even pretend that argument was about philosophy, 
so it was easy for me to just say I don't want to have that argument 
with him. We didn't talk to each other for maybe in a month, but now we 
like each other.

-Tuukka

8.1.2012 2:58, MarshaV kirjoitti:
> Tuukka,
>
> You gotta find it much more difficult to explain your own system (chart and article), than to get side-tracked focusing of Buddhism's "relative truths".
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
> On Jan 7, 2012, at 7:03 PM, Tuukka Virtaperko<mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net>  wrote:
>
>> Marsha,
>> you gotta have poor self-esteem or something as to interpret that what you said didn't work for me.
>>
>> -Tuukka
>>
>>
>>
>> 8.1.2012 1:14, MarshaV kirjoitti:
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
> 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
>