Hi Marsha,

On Oct 26, 2011, at 12:52 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 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.  
> 
It was in the quotes you provided.  Perhaps you want to reconsider?

> '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.
> 
It would seem that you are wrong here, but I guess it depends on what you mean 
by "analogy".

How do you measure your notion of impermanence?  Is there a fixed reference 
that is permanent?  Ever changing in terms of what?  You seem to be caught in a 
static loop.  I suppose it is ever changing because it is ever changing...  You 
know this is utter nonsense because it is utter nonsense.

But, I enjoy your righteousness,  you are a person with "attitude".  You just 
need to focus it for the positive, rather than this steadfast antagonism.  Yes, 
this takes time, best of luck.  I will continue to monitor you to see how you 
are doing, because I care.

Cheers
> 
> 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

Reply via email to