[MD] relative

[MarshaV]

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 10, 2012, at 8:30 AM, mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net wrote:

> 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.

Are you talking about yourself?



> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 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