[MD] relative

[mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net]

Marsha,
am I talking with a parrot, or something?

You write: "The black soldier on square h7 is moved one square forward."
I write: "Do you know a more compact expression for the same thing is:  
'h7 h6'? If we want Kasparov to check out whether we have invented a  
better way of playing chess, we should write it like that, because he  
won't bother to read other kind of notation."
You write: "I didn't realize you are omniscient. I wish you luck with  
your efforts to write 'h7 h6'. Now I'm going to get back to what I was  
doing, which is to write down chess moves."

If someone wants to do things your way, you and whoever that other  
person is will ignore me and continue this conversation themselves. If  
nobody wants to do things your way, it's not my fault. I haven't  
behaved in a way which would invite your slander. And I do consider it  
slander that I would wish to be someone who knows the one and only  
strategy for doing something like this. That would be against the  
spirit of the MOQ. Even if I truly were a person who knows the one and  
only right naming convention, we could never prove it. And this naming  
convention issue is not quite related to my project, so don't mix them  
up just like that. Everything I say is not about my project just  
because I was the one who said it.

I will consider temporarily categorizing you as someone not worth speaking to.

-Tuukka



Quoting MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>:

>
>
> 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.
>
> I hadn't realized that your project had been accepted as a major   
> success, and the one and only strategy.   Regardless, I do wish you   
> the best of luck with your efforts.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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. 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
>