Hi Mark,
All kidding about nepotism and cousins aside, I am quite comfortable with
conventional (static) truth being relative. It is a word comfortably used
within Buddhism and I see no reason to reject.
Marsha
On Oct 23, 2011, at 12:12 PM, 118 wrote:
> Hi Marsha,
> I respectfully disagree. "Relativism is a form of nepotism". A simple
> analysis of the roots of words can show that. Relatives and relativism. We
> cannot ascribe nepotism to our relation to our world. However, if your view
> works for you, more power to you; I cannot convince you otherwise, nor would
> I try. I interpret your quotes differently.
>
> Peace Out,
>
> Mark
>
> On Oct 21, 2011, at 11:25 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> Again:
>>
>> Conventional (static) truth is relative, as in:
>>
>> "The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths differentiates between
>> two levels of truth (Sanskrit: satya) in Buddhist discourse: a "relative"
>> or commonsense truth (Pāli: sammuti sacca), and an "ultimate" or
>> absolute, spiritual truth (Pāli: paramattha sacca)."
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths
>>
>> or from the MoQ Textbook:
>>
>> “Intellectual values include truth, justice, freedom, democracy and,
>> trial by jury. It’s worth noting that the MOQ follows a pragmatic
>> notion of truth so truth is seen as relative in his system while
>> Quality is seen as absolute. In consequence, the truth is defined
>> as the highest quality intellectual explanation at a given time."
>>
>>
>> Relationalism is form of nepotism.
>>
>>
>> Marsha
>>
>>
>> ___
___
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
