[MD] relative

[118]

Marsha,
Your ego is showing through.  Let's be civil shall we?

Do you think that relativism may have become dominant because
Aristotle tried to classify everything including philosophies?  By
creating such classifications he provided a means to compare things in
a relative fashion.  It seems difficult to conceive of relative
without comparison.  To compare things, we must establish that they
exist in some form.  In order to compare in a relative sense my
philosophical outlook to yours, we must extablish that we are
different "selves".  If we are non-existent exce[t as patterns of
expression, then there is no way relativeness works, in my opinion.
What is your philosophical opinion on this?

Cheers,

Mark

On 1/10/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>