[MD] relative.

[118]

Marsha,
If indeed what we use our statements as "relative truths", then what Hagen presents as Absolute truth is a relative truth as well.  What this would mean is that Absolute truth is a relative concept.

This absolute truth of Hagen's "dissipates like the morning mist after sunrise".  In other words, Absolute truth does not exist if we use Hagen's logic.  I guess that Hagen is lost in a relativity of his own making.  He cannot subscribe to absolute truth because of what he says.

So, thanks for the quote, it made my point about relative truths.  Is Hagen really a spokesman for Buddhism?  I wonder.  By using his quote you are trying to destroy Buddhism with Western concepts.  Don't you see that?

Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark

On Jan 14, 2012, at 2:04 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> 
> Hi dmb,
> 
> I have read Wiki and the SEP article and a number of books on relativism.  There are many types of relativism, and you are conflating an absolute amoral cultural relativism for all types.  Wiki and SEP present arguments and counter-arguments, all that seem to be beyond your comprehension.  But I have no wish to defend relativism.   I agree with the MoQ Textbook the MOQ follows a pragmatic notion of truth so truth is seen as relative in his system.  Truth is relative; that is how I see it, and that the MoQ "improves on James’ (relativistic) pragmatism".   
> 
> ---
> 
> Anthony writes:
> “Intellectual values include truth, justice, freedom, democracy and, trial by jury. It’s worth noting that the MOQ follows a pragmatic notion of truth so truth is seen as relative in his system while Quality is seen as absolute.  In consequence, the truth is defined as the highest quality intellectual explanation at a given time.
> 
> RMP:
> If the past is any guide to the future this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until something better comes along. One can then examine intellectual realities the same way he examines paintings of in an art gallery, not with an effort to find out which one is the ‘real’ painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of value. There are many sets of intellectual reality in existence and we can perceive some to have more quality than others, but that we do so is, in part, the result our history and current patterns of values. (Pirsig, 1991, p.103)”
> (McWatt,Anthony,MOQ Textbook)
> 
> 
> Marsha:
> And of course there is the strong recommendation for Steve Hagen's book:
> 
> ---  
> 
> "While I am thinking about it there is a very good book on Buddhism recently out called 'Buddhism, Plain and Simple', by Steve Hagen and published by Tuttle Publishing. I recommend you get it because it shows the similarities, between the MOQ and Zen Buddhism more clearly than any other I have seen."
>     (Pirsig to McWatt, May 6th 1998.)
> 
> ---
> 
> "Nagarjuna, the brilliant Buddhist philosopher of second-century India, wrote,
> 
>         Those who do not understand the distinction between
>          [the] two truths do not understand the profound truth
>         embodied in the Buddha's message.
> 
>   "These two truths are relative and Absolute Truth.
> 
>   "Relative truths are the day-to-day things and thoughts we can easily discuss, teach sell, and conceptualize.  These include simple facts --- a foot is twelve inches, oranges contain vitamin C, Mount McKinley is in North America.  But feet, inches, oranges, rocks, birds, feelings and thoughts, are themselves also relative truths.  Each one depends on a vast multiplicity of other things, other concepts, other relative truths for its existence --- an existence which is, of course, one hundred percent conceptual. 
> 
>   "Relative truths are the concepts we use to get an easy handle on the world.  They help us in our everyday lives with a huge variety of practical matters.  But the more closely we look at them, the less Real they show themselves to be.
> 
>   "Nevertheless, relative truths aren't to be avoided.  They're not necessarily evil, or harmful, or wrong.  Indeed, they're essential.  In order to get through the day, we need to know things --- telephone numbers, store hours, potatoes, growing seasons, fractions, love, speed limits, how to fasten shoes.  We run into trouble when we forget that all these things, thoughts, and feelings are relative --- that they are not Real, independent entities at all.  They exist only in relation to other things, thoughts, and feelings.  When we refer to "this book," that is a relative truth.  And we've already seen that the more closely we examine what "this book" is, the more we can't pin it down, and the more the "truth" of it dissipates like a morning mist after sunrise.
> 
>   "Relative truths are why we fight wars, why we fear people who aren't like us, and why we debate the abortion question but come no closer to a resolution of it. 
> 
> "Ultimate Truth, on the other hand, is direct perception.  And what is directly perceived (as opposed to conceived) is that no separate, individualized things exist as such.  There's nothing to be experienced but this seamless, thoroughgoing relativity and flux.
> 
>   "In other words, there are no particulars, but only _thus_.
> 
>   "Ultimate Truth can't be conceptualized or imagined.  You cannot hold Ultimate Truth in your mind at all.  You can _see_ It.  You just can't hold It as an idea.  
> 
>   "Ultimate Truth appears the same to all who _see_.  It can't be countered or doubted or discounted because it is immediate, direct experience itself.  It's not other-dependent.  It has no "other."  What's ultimately True can't be held in opposition to something else.  
> 
>   "We can actually _see_ this.  We can (and, in fact, we do) _see_ for ourselves, right now, Ultimate Truth, and Reality.  Our only problem is that we ignore what we _see_.”
> 
> 
>    (Hagen, Steve, ‘Buddhism: Plain and Simple’, pp.142-143)
> 
> 
> ---  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 14, 2012, at 4:04 PM, david buchanan wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Somehow this post lost a crucial chunk in the middle so that it's impossible to see who said what. What follows is a restoration to the best of my recollection...
>> 
>> 
>> david buchanan posted this:
>> Many of James' best-turned phrases—truth's cash value (James 1907, p. 200) and the true is only the expedient in our way of thinking (James 1907, p. 222)— were taken out of context and caricatured in contemporary literature as representing the view where any idea with practical utility is true. William James wrote:It is high time to urge the use of a little imagination in philosophy. The unwillingness of some of our critics to read any but the silliest of possible meanings into our statements is as discreditable to their imaginations as anything I know in recent philosophic history. Schiller says the truth is that which 'works.' Thereupon he is treated as one who limits verification to the lowest material utilities. Dewey says truth is what gives 'satisfaction'! He is treated as one who believes in calling everything true which, if it were true, would be pleasant. (James 1907, p. 90)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha replied:
>> Maybe that's how you understand it.  Maybe that is truth relative to your study and understanding.  RMP's MoQ "improves on James’ (relativistic) pragmatism"; that's my understanding.
>> 
>> 
>> dmb says:
>> The paragraph I posted isn't just my understanding. It is a section of the Wikipedia article on pragmatism, one that quotes William James. The encyclopedia says that those who think any useful idea is pragmatically true are guilty of painting a caricature based on a few phrases taken out of context. James himself says such critics are silly and discreditable. I selected that paragraph and posted as a response to you because that paragraph describes your silly position. I happen to know that James goes on to suggest, in the very next paragraph, that such critics are guilty of "impudent slander". That's also what I'm saying about silly position. It's a silly, slanderous, caricature of the pragmatic theory of truth. Likewise, as previously mentioned, Pirsig described Plato's accusation of relativism as vicious slander and the Stanford Encyclopedia says relativism is generally seen by philosophers as a "kiss of death". Your position is really quite ludicrous.
>> Pragmatism is a theory of truth. It rejects absolute and eternal truths but there are empirical and conceptual standards so that truths are "wedged and controlled" between the flux of experience and the conceptual order. In other words, the truth has to agree with experience and it has to make sense. This truth theory is not compatible with relativism because relativism denies that there can be any such standards of truth. Pragmatic truth is NOT "whatever works for me" or my culture. And to suggest otherwise really is vicious slander. James and Pirsig both deny it within their respective texts. (Andre and I already explained - several times - how you are misreading the quotes you constantly use.) Nobody is buying it. 
>> 
>> 
>> James wrote a kind of sequel to Pragmatism. It's called "The Meaning of Truth". I imagine that. In order to defend and extend his pragmatism, he wrote an entire book about truth. One of the most relevant chapters would be "Abstractionism and 'Relativismus'". I dare you to read it.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 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