[MD] relative

[118]

Yes you do Marsha since you understand what relative means (I think).

Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark

On Jan 10, 2012, at 11:45 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> 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
> 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