>>>
>>>> Marsha:
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>
>>
>>> Mark:
>>> Knowledge as referring to the intellectual variety is relative.
>>
>> Marsha:
>> 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.
>>
>> Marsha:
>> 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......
>>
>>
On Oct 26, 2011, at 1:24 AM, 118 wrote
> Mark:
> 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
Mark,
Where did I say that ALL knowledge was intellectual in nature??? I never made
such a claim. You must be the one confused.
'Man' and 'home' are both symbols pointing to conditionally co-dependent,
impermanent, changing processes; processes that have been reified through
conceptualization. 'Man' and 'home' are analogies built on analogies. They
are static value representing ever-changing processes that pragmatically tend
to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern.
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
