[MD] relative

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Marsha,
Thank you! I wish you success.

-Tuukka



8.1.2012 16:30, MarshaV kirjoitti:
> Tuukka,,
>
> My focus in the MD is on the MoQ as a bridge between the West's objective science and the East's introspective science of Mind.  Good luck with your project.  I hope you find someone interested in discussing it.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
> On Jan 8, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Tuukka Virtaperko wrote:
>
>> Marsha,
>>
>> 8.1.2012 14:34, MarshaV kirjoitti:
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Jan 8, 2012, at 6:51 AM, Tuukka Virtaperko<mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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".
>>> I am not buying the post modern biased jargonism.   I have posted the dictionary definition of 'relativism' (philosophic perspective) and the general dictionary definition of 'relative' and there is nothing there matching the conflated mess presented on this list.
>> Tuukka:
>>
>> I wasn't trying to sell it to you. I was trying to help you help everyone to not buy it.
>>
>> You sure can win your way if you work hard for it. But where's the dictionary definition? You have cited:
>>
>> Hagen, Steve, ‘Buddhism: Plain and Simple’, pp.142-143
>> Pirsig to McWatt, May 6th 1998
>> McWatt,Anthony,MOQ Textbook
>> Wikipedia
>>
>> None of these is a dictionary. Dictionaries aren't generally very useful as references in a debate, because they simplify so much. Maybe you meant an encyclopedia. So you cited "Two truths doctrine" from Wikipedia.
>>
>> Why didn't you cite the article titled "relativism"?
>>
>> I mean, when anyone who uses Wikipedia wants to know what is relativism, do you think they're going to write "two truths doctrine" in the search bar instead of "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.
>>> Drop the 'ism' and you'll be fine.  Truth, whether static patterns or the conventional type, is relative.  It works just fine.
>> Tuukka:
>> What do you actually want me to say? If I speak of my Western relative, people will think of some person whose bloodline coincides with that of mine, and who also perhaps wears a wide-brimmed hat.
>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> Marsha:
>>> What bullshit!  That the word is tainted is a one-sided bias.  Who are you representing when you make such a suggestion?  Have you been designated the spokesman for the entire academic environment.
>> Tuukka:
>> No. :D I guess I can't say anything without you thinking I am some sort of a commander! I mean, who are you representing? A dictionary? Isn't that much more academic than the completely practical suggestion from me, which represents really nobody else until they themselves say it does.
>>
>> And I, as a human being, do not represent anyone else. I don't command the forces that give me power. I interact with them. I and them have a recursive relationship...
>>
>>>> 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.)
>>> There are different levels of morality.  There is the morality assigned to the four different levels and the 'code of art', and there is morality of Dynamic Quality where it is pure goodness ( imho).
>> Tuukka:
>> Yup. But if everything is Quality, and everything is not knowledge, the point is that knowledge is subordinate to Quality, like you already know.
>>
>>> Marsha:
>>>
>>> Go get Mark to discuss with you.  You seem like two peas in a pod.
>> Tuukka:
>> First Matt gives me good ideas and we have a valuable conversation. Then Skutvik says on LS that Matt is a fool. Now Mark gives me good ideas and we have a valuable conversation. Now you say on MD that Mark is like a pea in a pod with someone who just made a bullshit suggestion. :D
>>
>> Coincidentally, I'm just reading the book on pattern recognition Mark told me about, and it's pretty good. It's also the first book I bought on my Kindle Fire, kindly and considerately given to me by my girlfriend as a Christmas present. I'd say this device is pretty good, and if you want an e-book, please, feel free to consider Kindle Fire.
>>
>> If you don't want to talk with me, though, just don't reply. If you want to have the last word... well... I guess you can keep trying and you could also succeed.
>>
>> -Tuukka
>>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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
>