[MD] relative

[MarshaV]

Tuukka,

Slander?  No way...   I offered good wishes.  If you think otherwise, you are projecting.  


Marsha



Sent from my iPad

On Jan 10, 2012, at 12:59 PM, mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net wrote:

> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 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