[MD] relative.

[118]

Hi Tuukka,

You make some of the same points I was trying to explain to Marsha.

Marsha is not even representing "relative" as it is meant in her
translation of some Buddhist article she presented.  Of course we get
a word from sandskrit (or whatever), and the term relative is given to
us as a possible translation of that word.  If relative appears, it is
not meant in the relativism way.  A better presentation of the two
truths would be: "Absolute" and "Common".  In this way we get away
from any indication of relativism.

Relativism is nihilistic and I think that Buddha was much too smart
for that.  For indeed he pointed out "common truths" such as his 8
requirements for achieving Nirvana expediently.  Many were enlightened
over a weekend.  We call these "right" which is also not good because
it implies "correctness".  By "right", he meant "appropriate".  It is
up to each person to determine what is appropriate for them to reach
Nirvana.  Now I suppose that Marsha would interpret this as: "the
eight fold path is all Relative" or " Buddhism is just a practice in
Relativism".  Which is of course utter nonsense.  In the same way, MoQ
does not subscribe to relativism, because if it did, Quality could not
be absolute, but would simply be "what you want it to be", as you say.
 Any discussion would be total nonsense, since one could say:  Well
you may think DQ is this, but for me it is that, and we are all equal
here so my view is just as valid as your view.  We end up with every
body being a different colored jelly bean.

As you correctly say (I think) relativism is self-destructive.
Recently I presented a post on "Is Quality Relative?"  Perhaps it was
too obscure, because I did not get any responses to it, especially
from the Queen of Relativism.

Marsha seems to be Googleing words and finding them, and then using
the quotes which have such words as evidence for something or other (I
am sure she is more thorough than that, but that is what it seems
like). It's like, she states: "See, the word relative is used".  If I
found the word "bad" in Lila I could say that "MoQ is bad, and I can
prove it".  Marsha is very serious about her metaphysics, which I am
still trying to understand, but she does not expand on it much.  I
have asked her questions about her metaphysics but she refuses to
discuss it. She does like to have the last word.

Having said this, Marsha does come up with some profound ideas, which
I enjoy reading.
Cheers,
Mark

On 1/12/12, mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> 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
> 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
>