On Jul 22, 2010, at 12:12 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > Marsha said: > ...because RMP has clearly stated that there are many truths, and in regards > to philosophy a position can be both true and false, and that truth is > relative, I am correct to stick with what I know from my own experience. > > dmb says: > > Well, Marsha, as I keep pointing out, you have confused Buddhism with fascism.
Marsha: Do you think so? > Your understanding of the MOQ turns it into relativist nightmare. Like I said > to John, you have confused diversity with promiscuity. I mean, wanting lots > of different opinions is not the same thing as dropping our standards of > quality to accommodate every opinion. That's just intellectual debauchery. Marsha: And like I've said to you, what you think matters little to me, though I wish you well. > > "If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to > be the bearers of objective immortal truth ... then there is nothing more > relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity... From the fact that all > ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the > modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself > his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he > is capable." (Benito Mussolini, 1921) Marsha: Geez... > Part of the problem is that you define static patterns as ever-changing. > That's like defining stable to mean unstable. It's just plainly wrong. There > is DQ and there is sq and "ever-changing" is a good description of just one > of them and it isn't the latter. There is a 50-50 chance of getting that > right but you blew it. Marsha: You think about however it works for you. I will continue to explore my own understanding. > This is a philosophy forum, you know? Killing static intellectual patterns > has it's place but not during a philosophy discussion. That would be like > touting the virtues of fasting during a feast or expressing the joy of dance > at a funeral. It's just insensitive to the point of obliviousness. It's like > pooping in the punch bowl. You might feel liberated but that's not > enlightenment. You're using "meditation" as cover so you don't have to play > by the same rules as everyone else. > > You're too enlightened for philosophy? Jeez, I think you flatter yourself way > too much. Marsha: I'm not enlightened, but I am wise enough to know I don't know. ___ 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
