[MD] relative.

[mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net]

Marsha,


> Marsha:
>  I don't think relativism, philosophically speaking, is a "dirty   
> word" or a "term of abuse"." There is nothing in the dictionary's   
> (Philosophy) definition of 'relativism' ' (posted below) or the   
> dictionary's definition of 'relative' (posted below) that indicates   
> either term to be valueless or prohibits assigning value.  And the   
> quote from Anthony states that " truth is seen as relative in his   
> system [MoQ]".
>
> ---
>
> relativism
>
> noun (Philosophy) .
> any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying   
> with individuals and their environments.
>
>  (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativism)
>

Tuukka:
Is relativism itself relativistic?

If yes, "relativism" is a Western idea called "descriptive  
relativism", which, as an ideology, is a blank slate and a preference  
to keep it so. It doesn't recognize the existence of Dynamic Quality.  
It does not seem to do much else than to "observe" objective quality.

If no, "relativism" could be "meta-ethical relativism", which is  
another Western idea. According to it, there, simply put, is no other  
kind of quality than subjective.

Also, "relativism" could be "normative relativism", which is yet  
another Western idea. It is an absolute statement according to which  
any kind of behaviour must be tolerated. So it's basically a  
contradiction. Because it's a contradiction, it permits both yes and  
no as an answer to the question of whether it is a relativistic truth  
itself.

If relativism is any of the three above, Mark is right and you are  
misrepresenting Buddhism.

If relativism neither is (provably) relativistic nor is (provably)  
nonrelativistic, then you are apparently using "relativism" in the  
Buddhist sense. But then you are mistaken in believing you are  
building a bridge. You are not building a bridge but trying to operate  
a battering ram and make Western people abandon all three above  
familiar forms of relativism in favor of something they have not heard  
much about.

Your dictionary definition is completely worthless because it doesn't  
even specify which one of these four options is relativism. It is  
useless as a reference, never use it again, never waste the brains of  
yourself and others with that. Never resort to it as something worth  
resorting to. Resort to the myriad of papers and books you have read  
on the subject, or even Wikipedia, like I do.

And when Anthony says "truth is seen as relative in his system", is  
that truth relative or not? I'm concerned that you don't seem like you  
have ever thought about whether the details of this question are  
relevant. What kind of articles and papers have you read as to not  
understand that this is not a simple question?

It's quite annoying that you portray yourself as someone who is an  
expert on the subject, yet you don't even know which way to go when  
someone does not understand you and needs clarification. Have I missed  
something? Are you not building the bridge at MD? Are you a teacher at  
a Zen center or something? Your supervisor might recommend you to  
speak of relativism there. It's not such a good idea, but he still  
might do so. So if that's the case, why don't you give me the e-mail  
of your supervisor? I'd like to explain to him that there's a better  
alternative.

-Tuukka