[MD] relative

Tue Jan 10 10:50:44 PST 2012

Sounds like another spiteful knife in the back to me.  But perhaps it
really is Marsha's aim to be collaborative.  I am interested to see
where she will go with her bridge building.  I am looking forward to
some interesting concepts of her own.  it will get us away from all
this quote cutting and pasting.

Mark

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