[MD] relative.

[MarshaV]

No, I don't think you did.   - Marsha 
 
 

On Jan 13, 2012, at 1:00 PM, 118 wrote:

> 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
> 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


 
___