Arlo, I am saying as the MoQ Textbook stated: "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."
Marsha On Nov 23, 2011, at 1:52 PM, Arlo Bensinger wrote: > [Marsha] > And that opinion is relative to your pattern life history. I will continue to > follow my interest in the relationship between the MoQ and Buddhism based on > my pattern life history and immediate experience. > > [Arlo] > In other words, if you want to bury your head in the sand, that's your > business. I get it. Just like with the 'the MOQ is theism' advocates, at the > end of the day that's what it boils down to, just like I said, "If I want to > think the MOQ is a theism, then you can't make me think otherwise." > > The end result here is that you are using a definition of 'relativism' based > on a translation that denies the Western term in used correctly, within a > Western culture, and you're demanding the most important thing in all this is > that the term 'relativism' is maintained, even though this is only someone's > approximate translation from an original text of which language you do not > speak. > > [Marsha] > Oh, but do you think Steve Hagen really was talking about 'contextualism'? > > [Arlo] > I have no idea. I'm not familiar with Hagen, and I'm not fluent with > translated Eastern languages and cultures to know if "contextualism" is a > better translation for the original Buddhist term or not. My point is that we > should begin with 'meaning' and look for terms that successfully embrace that > within the context of our dialogues. > > And if we are forced to redefine words, then we need to make sure we are > clear about that, and why redefinition is better than finding a more > appropriate word. You would need to start off every conversation with "I am > using the term 'relativism' in a way that is different than how you use the > term, but rather than meet over meaning, my goal is demand that you adopt the > term even if it means something entirely different within this context." > > For example, as someone interested in the works of Vygotsky, I know that > within that dialogue if I say "mediation" it means something entirely > different than if I were to use in nearly every other context (where most > would think I was talking about some form of intervention or counseling). But > I know what the meaning is so that I can find or explain terms should I need > to use this meaning in a non-Vygotskian context. I don't care that I am not > using the word "mediation", its just a word, I care about meaning. > > And, I had a student tell me once he thought 'mediation' meant a point of > over-saturation on television or broadcast media. It was funny, and I kinda > like how that sounds, but if I walked into a Vygostsky conference using the > word that way they'd all be unnecessarily confused. > > [Marsha] > Or maybe we should reject Hagen's book because of his ignorance in using such > a, as dmb said, "dirty word". > > [Arlo] > I don't care what word anyone uses, I care about the meaning, and the > necessity of shared meaning within discourse. I care about the unnecessary > confusion that arises when people redefine words to fit where other words > might bring clarity and understanding. Within Hagen's discourse, to his > audience, perhaps his lexical choices are appropriate. But again, I'm not > fluent enough in Eastern languages/cultures to demand that the term MUST be > translated as 'relative' and that everyone else should redefine what this > word means so that we can keep it. > > You see, that puts the emphasis on a word, not a meaning. Just like those who > demanded that "the MOQ is theistic". They keep the word and sound, but in > doing so the meaning of that term is completely ignored to the point where it > no longer has any relevance in the conversation. > > And even if you say the Eastern concept of "relativism" is different/better > than the Western, then you're left saying "The MOQ is Easternly relativistic, > but not Westernly relativistic." And you think this improves understanding? > Why not drop the term entirely and just say what the MOQ is by explaining > Eastern relativism? > > > 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
