[MD] relative

[MarshaV]

Mark,

I haven't the slightest what you are talking about.  


Marsha


On Jan 10, 2012, at 1:38 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>> 
> 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