On Mar 4, 2010, at 9:17 AM, X Acto wrote: > > > > > > 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: What use is there in indiscriminately associating a pejorative connotation to a philosophic term? > > 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. Marsha: I will not disagree with you. Evolutionary levels might be an excellent way to determine static betterment, but ultimately Quality is all goodness. > > > > > > 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
