----- Original Message ----
From: MarshaV <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thu, March 4, 2010 8:47:33 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] The Level of Intellectual Quality
Marsha:
I understand 'ultimate', as representing emptiness, being preferred
over 'absolute' because 'absolute' might suggest something that
exists in and of itself,independently. Nothing is independent in the
Madhayamika system, even emptiness.
Ron, I also think that equating relativism with 'Absolute relativism' is
a red herring. That patterns are relative doesn't equate to 'all is equal',
and doesn't prevent judgements based on what is useful.
Ron:
I agree, it is used most commonly as a perjorative term but it does
introduce a legitimate consequence of adopting such a viewpoint
so it does have it's value.
Marsha:
Concerning relative truths (sq), what is bad is that which causes suffering
and what is good is that which removes suffering. For me it isn't so
complicated.
Ron:
To me what is good is the attitude toward experience, suffering or not,
whether in a shit storm or sunny field it's all good, just different levels of
good
some things are better than others...some experience I can influence
some I can not, but it helps to be able to distinguish the difference and act
on that distinction.
It is often said, that by embracing the value of suffering it removes it.
On Mar 4, 2010, at 8:15 AM, X Acto wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
___
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
