Yea, Marsha, I'm sure the various Buddhist communities have got your back. Their authority is your authority. And I'm sure you interpret their meaning perfectly because you're always so meticulous about that sort of thing, you philosophical wonk, you.
Actually, the sarcastic criticism is beside the point because I've never made any claims about relativism among Buddhists. I've only ever talked about what the MOQ is and is not - or maybe what is and is not a philosophical good idea in general. This is just another repeat of the same old pattern; insult and evade, dismiss and evade. No substance to the insult. No real response, or even an acknowledgement of the point. How many of your responses do nothing but tell us why you don't have to respond. If you add those unresponsive responses to the Youtube links and the painting reports, your post aren't much better than spam. Yawn. > From: [email protected] > Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 16:43:20 -0400 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] Emptiness & Quantum Mechancics > > dmb, > > I guess I need to repeat myself, so here goes: > > > On Sep 28, 2010, at 10:33 PM, MarshaV wrote: > > > > > > Maybe you should write to the various Buddhist communities to convince them > > to refrain from stating that 'relative truth' is the conventional way we > > perceive reality. Until then I'm not much interested in what you think on > > cognitive relativism. In fact, that's why I don't want to discuss with > > you, dmb. I think you don't really know what you're talking about. Sorry. > > > > Marsha > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 5, 2010, at 4:11 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > > > > > > Marsha said: > > RELATIVITY: > > the tallest dwarf > > meeting the smallest giant > > - same size > > > > > > > > dmb says: > > > > No, that's not what relativity means. Relativity means there is no standard > > by which to measure things like truth and moral values. > > > > What you have above is merely three sets of relations. > > > > The dwarf is tallest in relation to other dwarves. > > The giant is the smallest when compared to other giants. > > In relation to each other, the dwarf and the giant are the same size. > > > > As a practical matter, these relations do not depend on one's perspective > > or worldview. It just depends on whether or not you can get all the dwarfs > > and giants to stand next to a measuring tape. That's how you know you've > > got the tallest dwarf in the first place. That's how you know all other > > giants are bigger. These are quantifiable facts and all three sets of > > relations are true at the same time without contradiction. The term > > "relative" can be used to mean "in relation to" or "by comparison with" but > > that doesn't have anything to do with the objectionable philosophical > > stance known as relativism. If we say the dwarf is relatively tall, we > > don't mean his height cannot be determined or that his height depends on > > one's understanding of the term "tall". > > > > > > Words and concepts are relational in a similar way. As I like to point out, > > the meaning of the terms "static" and "dynamic" is relational in the sense > > that "static" means the opposite of dynamic and "Dynamic" means the > > opposite of static. The meaning of each term is depends on not being the > > other, the same way hot and cold or short and tall define each other by > > opposition. Words also derive their meaning by virtue of their relation to > > context in which the term is being used. "Tall" can mean "highly > > exaggerated" when we're talking about tales, it can refer to the shape of a > > cocktail glass when talking to a bartender, it can mean "difficult" when > > we're talking about tall orders and tall obstacles. It can refer to a proud > > posture or walking style as well as actual height. Many words are very > > flexible and have many different meanings depending on the context but > > again this is to say that meaning is relational, not relative to the user. > > Words mean what they mean in relation to o > th > > er words and in relation to the context in which it's being used. In other > > words, we can't isolate the meaning of a term because it derives it's > > meaning from the whole language system. This is the net of jewels idea > > applied to words. Similarly, some philosophers talk about our "web" of > > beliefs. This image get across the idea that some concepts are more central > > than others, which is probably true. > > > > > > Compared to the top of Mount Everest and the tallest short guy, the Empire > > State Building is shorter and taller at the same time. These are not > > relative truths or opposed claims or two different views. It's merely two > > different comparisons, two different facts. The building is never going to > > be taller than the mountain and it'll never be shorter than any person, not > > even the tallest giant. I don't mean to be some kind of yard-stick > > fundamentalist. I'm just saying that relations are just as real as anything > > else and it's a part of what it means for something to be true and right. > > This could be called relationalism or relationism or wholism or > > contextualism or situationalism. But relativity or relativism is something > > else entirely. It's the philosophical equivalent of combining halitosis > > with leprosy. > > > > > > > > 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
