[MD] relative
mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net
mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net
Wed Jan 11 03:45:15 PST 2012
Marsha,
again, this would be something which could serve as an end of an
argument. I mean, I will refuse to believe myself that I know the only
right way of doing things. Even if I won't refuse that, I am inclined
to resist the idea in fear that it would be detrimental to creativity
within the community. But if others wish to bestow the title of
"someone who knows the only right way of doing things" and they would
not do this in a sarcastic manner, I could at least temporarily accept
such a social role if I were convinced that it's not a trap which will
backfire the moment I make my first mistake.
So... I hadn't yet realized either that my project is regarded as a
major success, _by_the_MOQ_community_at_large_. Horse and DMB have not
yet commented and most importantly, I would expect to hear something
from Pirsig at some point. Not if he doesn't want to, but he might be
interested of something like this.
I don't know about the projecting thing. I think it's pretty important
to stress that we don't want to become like the pompous academics in
their halls of stone. I want to remain open to new ideas despite being
successful. I don't want to shut out Dynamic Quality from my life.
Even if I got the Kyoto philosophy prize of 500 million Yen, I
currently think I'd like to hang around in the place where there's
interesting discussion, and if MD were the best place for that, then I
guess I'd be at MD... and no, I'm not aiming towards receiving that
prize. The odds are low given how our scholastic scholars treat
philosophical creativity.
We don't want to become people who believe all of truth can be put
into a book if the peer-review mechanism for the publication of the
book is awkward enough.
-Tuukka
Quoting MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>:
>
> 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
>
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list