"... the best judgments ("truths") are tentative because they are appropriate
only for particular situations and different judgments are needed when those
situations change. This perspective is expressed more clearly in the Liezi:
Nowhere is there a principle which is right in all circumstances or an action
that is wrong in all circumstances. The method we use yesterday we may discard
today and use again in the future; there are no fixed right and wrong to decide
whether we use it or not. The capacity to pick times and snatch opportunities,
and be never at a loss to answer events belongs to the wise.
If ethical relativism means denying a fixed moral standard by which to
evaluate situations, one could hardly find a better formulation; yet the last
sentence seems to confuse the issue again, by emphasizing a distinction that
most contemporary versions do not reserve a place for. There is an important
difference between the sage and the rest of us. Evidently it is not enough to
defend such a relativistic position, or to be a relativist in practice, for
those philosophers who accept relativism do not thereby become wise, and those
who live relativistically do not thereby live wisely. Mahayana Buddhism makes a
similar point with its doctrine of upaya, the "skillful means" with which the
bodhisattva works for the liberation of all sentient beings, adopting and
adapting whatever devices are suitable to the immediate task at hand,
disregarding conventional moral codes and even the Buddhist precepts when
necessary. This type of relativism too is reserved for beings who have att
ained a high level of spiritual development -- the Buddhist equivalent of a
Daoist sage.
The difference between them and us is that they are liberated by
relativism, or into relativism, while the rest of us are more likely to become
its victims, since the freedom it encourages panders to our preoccupation with
satisfying insatiable desires. In other words, the difference is self. Those
deluded by a sense-of-self are trapped in their own self-preoccupation; ethical
relativism clears the way for such people to do whatever is necessary to get
what they want. Since sages and bodhisattvas are liberated from
self-preoccupation, because they do not experience others as objects whose
well-being is distinct from their own, relativism frees them from the formal
constraints that the rest of us seem to need and allows them to get on with the
task of apparently saving all sentient beings while actually doing nothing at
all (a paradox embraced by both traditions).
If the issue of ethical relativism in the Zhuangzi cannot be understood
without also considering the role of self, is that also the case for other
types of relativism -- such as knowledge?"
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/101801.htm
Are you talking of an absolute "good quality" or something other? Sorry, I am
not a member of facebook so don't have access to the video. Maybe you can
explain what you mean.
Marsha
On Dec 26, 2010, at 4:21 AM, Jan-Anders wrote:
> Hi Adrie and Marsha
>
> This is an example of how something can have good quality in content but
> still the presentation is messed up by the form of it.
>
> http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=493477069259
>
> An iPad would probably give it a higher quality as the total quality is
> composed by both the content and how it is presented.
>
> JA
___
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
