[MD] relative.

[118]

Marsha,
I have already presented this, please review my posts.

Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark

On Jan 12, 2012, at 8:55 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> Mark,
> 
> Tell me why you think relativism is destructiveness?  In its most general (Philosophy) dictionary definition it is presented as quite benign?   
> 
> 
> Marsha
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Jan 12, 2012, at 5:44 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Marsha,
>> Yes, I realize this is your attitude make a statement and run.
>> Perhaps you just want to say this simply to be provocative, and then
>> not discuss it.  This is your "bull-horn" approach to this forum.  You
>> can show me otherwise, or perhaps say "I don't care what you think
>> (nah, nah, nah), it is a woman's perogative to be annoying".  However,
>> I will continue to challenge you whenever you bring this up, since
>> this is a discussion forum, not a platform for trying to convert
>> people through dogma,as you may think it is.  (Perhaps all good fun
>> for you, since this may be your MO).  If you want to guide MoQ in the
>> way you are suggesting, this will not be easy for you.  I am coming to
>> think there may not be much substance to what you are proposing.
>> (this is starting to sound like a discussion between you and dmb...)
>> 
>> Please explain how relativism is consistent with MoQ, since you say
>> that it is.  This is simply a discussion, not an attempt at one
>> upsmanship.  I am sure you have your reasons other than seeing the
>> word relative in a quote.  If you do not, then you do not need to
>> address this question until the next time you claim relativism, for I
>> will challenge your assertion.  These terms are more than just a
>> definition in a dictionary as you know.  If you do not know this, then
>> you are being simple-minded (which I know is not true since you have
>> and Agenda with your posts).
>> 
>> What is your Agenda with the term relative except to show that you
>> have read some quote somewhere?  Don't run and hide behind a
>> dictionary or some quotes or refuse to support your contention, you
>> are better than that.  Maybe you do not believe in Relativism and are
>> just doing this for some other reason.  Could that be?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Mark
>> 
>> On 1/12/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Mark,
>>> 
>>> Again, I am not going to discuss the term 'relativism'.  I can only state,
>>> as I have in the past, when it comes to 'relativism' I don't find the term
>>> 'relativism', philosophically speaking, to be a "dirty word" or a "term of
>>> abuse".".  I stated that in a reply to Steve.   None the less, there is
>>> nothing in the dictionary's (Philosophy) definition of 'relativism' '
>>> (posted below) that indicates valuelessness or that prohibits assigning
>>> value.
>>> 
>>> The quote from Anthony states that " truth is seen as relative in his system
>>> [MoQ]", and there is nothing in the dictionary's definition of 'relative'
>>> (posted below) that indicates that it is valueless or prohibits assigning
>>> value, either.  I interpret the MoQ to be ontologically indeterminate and
>>> epistemologically relative.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> 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