Marsha: I do not understand what you are suggesting. My preferences for words may change relative to my history and DQ too.
On Oct 9, 2010, at 10:11 AM, X Acto wrote: > what you say, perhaps not > > what you preffer, now thats another story > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: MarshaV <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sat, October 9, 2010 10:08:04 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] Emptiness & Quantum Mechancics > > > Marsha: > No, Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable. What I > say about Quality is not Quality, it is a static representation > relative to my history and DQ. > > Quality(unpatterned experience/patterned experience) > > > > On Oct 9, 2010, at 10:02 AM, X Acto wrote: > >> it seems quality is knowable >> >> you just expressed prefference for the term "ultimate" >> >> you know you like it better. >> >> thats Quality >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: MarshaV <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Sat, October 9, 2010 9:58:37 AM >> Subject: Re: [MD] Emptiness & Quantum Mechancics >> >> Marsha: >> I haven't any idea what you're talking about. I cannot find a clear >> definition of the word 'absolute' as you are using explaining it. >> >> Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable, so it seems to >> me that what we can say about it is not Absolute, it is relative. >> >> I prefer 'ultimate.' >> >> >> >> On Oct 9, 2010, at 9:42 AM, X Acto wrote: >> >>> I think this where the trouble stems from in regard to "emptiness" too. >>> it's a matter of preference concerning meaning of terms. >>> >>> does emptiness accurately convey betterness? >>> >>> not really >>> >>> but "ultimate" tends to hint at a finality >>> >>> where absolute hints at form, but absolute quality hints at formless form. >>> >>> we know it but can't define it. >>> >>> what do you think? >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ---- >>> From: MarshaV <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Sent: Sat, October 9, 2010 9:34:35 AM >>> Subject: Re: [MD] Emptiness & Quantum Mechancics >>> >>> Marsha: >>> I do not use the word 'absolute'; I like better the word >>> 'ultimate.' The Absolute is beyond my ability to know it. >>> >>> Quality(unpatterned experience/patterned experience) >>> >>> >>> >>> On Oct 9, 2010, at 9:31 AM, X Acto wrote: >>> >>>> Quality is absolute >>>> >>>> absolute betterness >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ---- >>>> From: MarshaV <[email protected]> >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Sent: Sat, October 9, 2010 9:06:37 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [MD] Emptiness & Quantum Mechancics >>>> >>>> >>>> Marsha: >>>> I do not consider my measurement of truth as absolute. >>>> I have no knowledge of what is Absolute. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 9, 2010, at 9:02 AM, X Acto wrote: >>>> >>>>> sure you do >>>>> >>>>> you have knowledge of what you like and dislike >>>>> >>>>> you have knowledge of Quality >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ---- >>>>> From: MarshaV <[email protected]> >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Sent: Sat, October 9, 2010 8:45:41 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [MD] Emptiness & Quantum Mechancics >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Marsha: >>>>> The question was to John's explanation of an >>>>> _Absolute_ measure of truth because he claims >>>>> that one exists. I do not consider my measurement >>>>> of truth as absolute. I have no knowledge of what >>>>> is Absolute. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 9, 2010, at 8:19 AM, X Acto wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> You already posses it Marsha. >>>>>> Your own values >>>>>> your collection of likes and dislikes >>>>>> put to work in everymoment of experience. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ---- >>>>>> From: MarshaV <[email protected]> >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> Sent: Thu, October 7, 2010 1:48:23 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [MD] Emptiness & Quantum Mechancics >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi John, >>>>>> >>>>>> What is this Absolute measure of truth? Where is it? How can I >>>>>> get access to it to apply it when necessary? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Marsha >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 7, 2010, at 1:12 PM, John Carl wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yeah, dave, I sorta figured you were referring to to philosophical >>>>>>> relativism rather than physical relativism. In my book, the latter >> refutes >>>>>>> the former. I've always argued against Relativism in my philosophic >>>>>>> disputations also. So I with you on that one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> dmb says: >>>>>>>> If you are talking within the context of physics, "relativity" is about >>>>>>>> time and space. In the context of philosophy, however, relativism is a >>>>>>>> position on truth and morality. So Einstein's theory is not in dispute >>>> here. >>>>>>>> The dispute is about epistemological relativity and its relation to the >>>>>>>> pragmatic theory of truth. That is the context in which "relativity" >> means >>>>>>>> there is no standard by which to measure things like truth and moral >>>> values. >>>>>>>> As you may have noticed, I think relativism is a very bad idea with >>>>>>>> very > >>>> bad >>>>>>>> consequences and I think the pragmatic theory of truth is NOT a form of >>>>>>>> relativism. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Usually though, my disputation takes the form of Relativism vs. >> Absolutism, >>>>>>> and since you and I agree on disparaging Relativism, I'm puzzled how >>>>>>> you >>> can >>>>>>> disagree with me that Truth is an Absolute Ideal. Even if you make >>>>>>> Experience your Absolute, it is still, an Absolute. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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
