[MD] relative

[MarshaV]

Greetings,

My focus in the MD is on the Metaphysics of Quality as a bridge between the West's objective science and the East's introspective science of mind.  This is a very legitimate exploration, even if I am not fully up to the task.  But what kind of dialogue, or investigation, can take place between East and West if the demand is to use the vernacular of the West's post-modern, academic philosophy departments?  That conventional truth is relative is an extremely common utterance within Buddhism.  And, I understand it as true.  There are many types of relativism; to name some - epistemological relativism, cognitive relativism, conceptual relativism; not all types lead to the same consequence.  Some, but certainly not all, are associated with being 'culturally amoral', but to conflate all types of relativism with this particular type is illogical.  It would be like thinking Fido is a mean dog, therefore all dogs are mean.  

Neither the dictionary's general philosophic definition of 'relativism' that I presented nor the definition of 'relative' contained anything that would prevent assigning a value rating to a pattern or 'knowledge'.  In Buddhism, conventional (relative) truths can be ranked as skillful or unskillful towards alleviating suffering.  Within the MoQ, patterns may be ranked by their placement within evolutionary levels of inorganic, biological, social or intellectual.  Because the MoQ is not to be confined to any contemporary branch of Western philosophy, but represents a new and better 'world view', its presentation and language should be inclusive rather than exclusive. I still remember hearing of Khoo's concern, on the tape from the 2005 Conference, that the great Asian intellectual tradition may be on the decline, with its underlying philosophy of harmony and unity lost.  Demanding adherence to a Western philosophic cultural bias is wrong, just plain wrong.   

 
Marsha