[MD] relative

[mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net]

Marsha, all,

i think computer science includes definitions ("recursion",  
"context-free language", "finite-state machine") which are neutral and  
only wish to illustrate a certain structure. They are also not  
ambiguous. Any Buddhist who would like to, for example, become a  
computer scientist, would use the same concepts because they are not  
loaded with dispute and ambiguity. It is irrelevant that they have  
originated in the West. They are outside the _philosophical_ debate  
that could take place between East and West.

Basically, Buddhist "relativist" epistemology is recursive  
epistemology. MOQ is a context-free language by its structure, or  
nevertheless, an analogue of such a language. SOM is a finite-state  
machine by its structure, or an analogue of such a "machine".

These may sound like cryptic buzzwords to the layman. But to a person  
who has devoted much effort to these kind of things they are  
preferable. Such people tend to control the means of information  
validation and the distribution of information that is deemed  
prestigious -- ie. the academy. Of course we can convert people one by  
one, but if we got through in the academy, we would basically get a  
big bunch of people to do that kind of stuff -- the bridge building  
between the East and West -- for us, and those people would have a lot  
of power compared to how much power we have.

-Tuukka



Quoting MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>:

>
> 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
>
>
> 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
>