Hi marshal, Interesting that you disagree since the quotes you provide indicate that you agree. You are the one who has said that knowledge is of the intellectual variety in many of your quotes. Did you change your mind. I was simply pointing out that as you use it in your quote below it is relative. Are you now saying that it is not relative? I am confused.
Do you know what the difference between "man" as a concept and "home" as a concept is? If they are both the same then it is a very flat world. Sometimes seeing the nuances in speech is difficult, I will try to be simpler in the future. Unless you are just pulling my leg again. Sometimes I think you are serious when you are just playing around. Mark On Oct 25, 2011, at 1:06 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Mark, > >> >> On Oct 24, 2011, at 3:17 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> It seems Protagoras was not alone... >>> >>> >>> “It was classic William James, imbued with a sense of the relativism of all >>> knowledge, a respect for and curiosity about alternative perspectives, an >>> instinct to analyze clearly and thoroughly but to develop a synthesis >>> wherever possible, and a conviction that the truth of any idea or thing is >>> best understood by observing its action in the world. >>> >>> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/americancollection/american/genius/william_bio.html >>> >>> >>> ___ > > > > On Oct 24, 2011, at 4:34 PM, 118 wrote: > >> Mark: >> Knowledge as referring to the intellectual variety is relative. > > I disagree with changing the quote from "all knowledge" to "Knowledge as > referring to the intellectual variety." > > >> Mark: >> It is a creation of man that can be analogized to the framework of a house. >> Everything must fit together for it to "work". >> However a "home" is not relative to that framework, it is relational. To >> apply the concept of relativity one must use measurement. How does one >> measure a "home"? One could be home on the range. If abstract concepts >> such as home or love or truth are placed in a relative framework, their >> quality is lost, in my opinion. > > Man is a concept, so what are you actually saying? In your opinion the > concept's concept is what? > > >> Mark: >> Of course there is much security living in a world interpreted as relative, >> but, for me, much of the wonder is lost through continual comparison. We >> try to remember how we felt last week, and say "now is better", or we keep >> waiting for the "better". There is no relativity in "the moment"; try to >> impart some creates the static from the dynamic. Quality is not relative it >> is relational, for me. But, I would be happy to learn from you what you >> personally get from the relative point of view. > > Marsha: > We? While I do care that you are happy, your question makes no sense. > > >> Mark: >> You can provide all the quotes you want, but that will not tell me anything. >> Use your own words, otherwise this is just a silly exercise in Google >> Reality Reification (grr...). Oh, and google is relative so that is not the >> right tool to use to analyze relativity. > > Marsha: > Purrrr...... > > > 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 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
