Marsha,
I think it is proper to talk of Ultimate Truth rather than the Absolute, but,
and I
could be misunderstanding, Ultimate Truth is not separate from conventional
truths. Kind of like sq and DQ are interdependent.
Ron:
Nagarjuna would agree, to speak of a concept, it must be understood in terms of
related
concepts, a hanging together of ideas..when we use terms like ultimate and
absolute
we mean the entirety of things, the whole of it. Kant argued if the conception
of
such a thing is even possible, Nietzsche criticized Hegel for it..Aristotle
charges Parmenides,
Buddha mocks the idea of it.
As it applies to both the one and the many, unity and plurality, monism and
relativism.
But they are criticizing how that belief is formed, Aristotle makes a point
similar
to Pirsig and James in that Absolute relativism neglects the good.
On Mar 4, 2010, at 12:20 AM, John Carl wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 10:18 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> I believe Pirsig would agree with W. James and Nagarjuna.
>
>
>
> As would Royce and me, Ron. Our case for an absolute is also the middle way
> - it's not the only thing there is, but neither is it non-existent. And as
> an existant, it pulls that moral compass toward better and better analogy.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
___
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
