[MD] relative

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Marsha,
but that is one of my interests. Knowledge is relative in the Buddhist 
sense. I'm just concerned of a small technicality, which may have big 
consequences. "Uni", "academics" and "West" are names for only one thing 
here. The problem is, that the East and West have different definitions 
for "relativism". Well, that's not the real problem. The real problem is 
that if we use either definition, we are trying to make one side win the 
argument and another side to lose it. That is why I end up believing 
that neither Western "relativism" nor Eastern "relativism" should be 
used. The word "relativism" should be regarded as tainted and as 
something which will invite discord. And upon doing so, one should, if 
convenient, state the reason why she's avoiding that word. It would be 
wise to come up with new words for these things, because we don't want 
to have winners and losers in a situation where everyone could be a winner.

This is ecspecially true now that the MOQ has granted us knowledge of 
the relationship between knowledge and morality. (Or... morality with 
respect to the relationship between morality and knowledge.)

-Tuukka



8.1.2012 12:07, MarshaV kirjoitti:
> Hello Tuukka,
>
> Your "work for me" was peppered with 'buts', making what I presented insignificant:  yes, but the West won't accept; yes, but the Uni won't accept; yes, but academics won't accept.  Take off your culturally-biased glasses and notice the world is changing.  Influences are going global.  Asia is on the rise, and it might be that 'the West' is falling under the weight of its own greed, ill-will and ignorance.  And part of that ignorance might be its huge ego and its certainty.  The most insightful Wisdom that Buddhism has to offer is that our bloody knowledge is relative!
>
> It's been repeated on this list that 'actions have consequences'.  There's nothing new in that statement, for the Buddha stated long ago 'If this is, that comes to be; from the arising of this, that arises; if this is not, that does not come to be; from the stopping of this, that is stopped'.  I am sure other ancient civilizations also figured that out.  Actions have consequences and consequences have actions, and both are contingent on innumerable causes and conditions.  Knowledge, whether called 'static patterns of value' or 'conventional truths' are relative.  We learn more and go farther by accepting that, than from running from and denying it.
>
> If your interests are elsewhere, by all means: Go for it!
>
>
>
> 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
>