[MD] SOM Problem #6523213: Relativity and Truth

[118]

Hi Tuukka,
A response...

On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 1:36 AM,  <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> David,
>
>> Firstly, the word 'relativity' from a SOM perspective is a problem.
>> 'All truths are relative and so we don't really know what's true' is  a
>> SOM statement.
>
>
> I'm not sure whether you mean "relativity, as that word is used within the
> SOM perspective, is a problem" or "relativity is a problem from a SOM
> perspective". I'd say the word 'relativity' is a problem from any
> perspective, because it has different meaning depending on the context. In a
> Buddhist context it means something it apparently doesn't mean in any branch
> of Western moral philosophy. But Buddhist "relativism" has analogues in
> computer science, such as "recursion" and "dynamically typed programming
> language".
>
Mark:
The use of relativeness in Buddhism is incorrect, in my opinion.
Those authors that use such a word to describe Buddhism in Western
terms really have no idea what "relativity" means in a Western
philosophical sense.  Such authors are not well versed in such Western
philosophy, for if they were, they would not use this term.  As you
know, to invoke relativeness into any discussion leaves one swimming
in a nonsensical ocean where there is no ground on which to stand.

Therefore, if such authors are serious of presenting the philosophy of
Buddhism in Western philosophical terminology, they should not confuse
the issue.  The term relative as translated into English and Western
philosophy is meant to imply "common" or "accepted" (in my treatment
of this terminology).  As such, the term "relative truth" does not
bring in Relativism.  It implies a normative method for discussion.
Beneath this common use of truth is our appreciation of this reality
in non-relative terms.  That is, it cannot be classified into
categories, but is created from within.  There is nothing relative
about that since such creation cannot be compared to anything, it
grows.  The imposition onto one's relationship with "what is" by
conforming truths is what Buddhism is against.  This is the same thing
Pirsig warns against (imo).

What this means is that Buddhist philosophy does not propose truths,
but paths.  Is it true that one can see the Pacific coast by hiking
the beautiful coast-line of California?  Why, of course.  But does
this truth give any rules for the appreciation one gets from such
hiking?  Of course not!  See for yourself!

Buddhism is not dogma, it is a tour guide (or a "raft", as Buddhists
will say).  In this way it is much different from Western philosophy
which expounds on presenting "what is" as a set of rigorous rules.
While there is a branch called Relativism in Western philosophy, this
does not exist in Buddhism, for that ascribes to The Absurd as Marsha
has recently posted.  The same can be said for MoQ not residing in the
Absurd of Existentialism.

All my humble opinion, of course.

Cheers,
Mark

(the views presented in this post do not relate to the vast body of
work known as orthodox Buddhism, nor are they very factual on the
views from the coastline formed between California and the Pacific
Ocean.  Understand at your own risk!  Fundamentally Organically Grown
(FOG).)


> 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