Hi Mark
Relativism is interesting but I think it's still just another
one-dimensional truth.
The MOQ has three classes and this is about one of them. I called this
the expression, how something is expressed to something else, the
recieved impression. The bubbles of being in time are bouncing around
with each other. Like flashes of light in the dark they shine through
the most and some have the right frequency to interact with another.
There are also energy in the space that comes together by gravitation
and grow. Still it's a lump of mass. Depending on the weight the
relation to the scale is changed. Big masses can slow down the time.
Einstein dimension.
Masses are moving around, Planck-oriented. Relations are different
depending of the movement and speed. The hot stove doesn't make a good
quality relation to someone sitting on it. Room tempered is better.
Slower vibration of the molecules in it. Good piece of heavy metal music.
br
Jan-Anders
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 11:17:50 -0800
From: 118<[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [MD] Humanism
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi dmb,
I assume that SEP is the Stanford site. Typically in the sciences we
provide a reference for a quote, a web page would be appreciated. I have
deleted the quote for size reasons.
I also assume you chose this passage because of the beyond relativism part.
As such, you would say that MOQ falls within this category. One must use
the concept of relativism to get beyond it, thus the traps. So, even if
truth is relative to the observer, what you suggest is that truth is
directional, like a vector.. It is that directionality that MOQ points
towards. Please correct me if I am wrong so far. Again, I have to assume
what you are thinking because you do not present it. When we seek to define
Quality, we are concerned about falling into traps. Are you suggesting that
such traps are detrimental and can not be used to further an understanding
of Quality? I am not trying to put words into your mouth, but I have little
to go on here from you.
This directionality, that I have to assume you are subscribing to, can be
outside the relative side of description. MOQ presents the levels as
epistemological evidence for direction. This is borrowing from the analogy
in biology of evolution. Of course, bringing evolution requires some
definition of terms and cannot be simply subjected to "we all know what
evolution is". I would claim to know many more details concerning the
biological paradigm of evolution. Such levels are also considered to be one
of control (please correct me if you do not subscribe to this). As such,
you would say that the intellectual level should have justification to
control the societal level. Personally I do not think this follows from an
understanding of Quality being pre-conceptual. What say you?
The continuity of a metaphysics from previous metaphysics such as James is
appropriate as a path towards understanding. The continuity from other
philosophies is also appropriate. We live in an age where such comparison
can be done without getting up and going to the library or talking to a
philosophy professor. When there is a break in paradigm from the proposed
Western thought to something different, and when this brings a metaphysics
back to pre-socratic days, as is explained in ZMM, it is possible to bring
in many philosophies since all tie together. In this way the introduction
of Buddhism is appropriate, as is the discussion of Vedic thought. One
cannot say that, because it has similarities with radical empiricism it must
be presented that way, again, due to lack of input, I have to assume this is
where you are coming from. MOQ cannot be fit into a hard shell in that way
and provide its future direction, imo. If you do believe this is correct on
my part, I would like to learn why.
I prefer the concept of relationalism. I do not like what Wiki has to say
about this, and I would direct anybody interested to: Relationalism.org. to
start. I do not draw completely from this idea, but it provides some kind
of foundation for discussion. In particular, the extract of a paper from J.
Kaipayil,
http://relationalism.org/Documents/Excerpt%20from%20Relationalism.pdf.
This extract also provides some of the notions that I have been presenting
in terms of the basic similarity between science and metaphysics.
Perhaps this should be a new subject, and I have tried to introduce my
concept of relationalism into the group by incorporating Quality. In this
sense I do not necessarily agree completely with the site I just presented.
It is my feeling that the existence of objects can be presented more
fundamentally through metaphysics.
Mark
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 9:33 AM, david buchanan<[email protected]>wrote:
Everything that follows comes from SEP's article on Relativism and I am not
going to tell anyone what it means because I think you should be able to see
that for yourself. Am I wrong to give people that much credit? I don't
really want to debate anyone who can't read and think for themselves. I
don't want to argue with anyone who resents the use of an encyclopedia or
anyone who feels persecuted by any kind of textual evidence. Any reader can
see that I picked these passages for a reason and a good reader will be able
to see what that reason is.
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
