Hi Marsha, If you mean that truth is derived from the individual, then I agree wholeheartedly. If you mean that there is some outside truth that is interpreted differently by each individual, then I would say this goes against MoQ.
It seems to me (and I may be wrong), that your use of "relative" in the sentence below is not contextual with Relativism. Truth and the individual cannot be relative. I do not think that is a valid comparison. If you mean that an individual expresses his/her own truth, then I would agree. But this is not a concept of relativity; It would be more of a concept of individuality. The way I see Relativism (and dmb may correct me here), is as a world devoid of any fundamental ground. That is, things can only "be" in relation to something else. Things can only exist if they are measured against something else. An example of this would be the standard Yin/Yang approach. Good needs evil to exist, black needs white. However, underlying this world of opposites is the Tao, or perhaps Quality. That is, Quality gives rise to Good and evil. Quality (with a capital) is not a relative term, but an absolute term. When Pirsig elaborates on Arete, he expresses it as expression of "The Good". This Good does not exist relative to The Bad, but exists on its own. It is an expression of the universe, not something that is doing battle with the Devil. So, while we can say that a Yin/Yang approach is perhaps a Relativistic approach, it is not the full equation. Because to put Quality under the umbrella of relativism, goes against the idea that Quality is an event in and of itself. Therefore perhaps Quality gives rise to relativity (that is, it is what "separates" the good from the bad), but it is not the fundamental nature of Quality. Quality is the "sacred ground", and the sacred is not relative. This notion of causal separation of relative concepts (say high quality and low quality) is something I went into great detail with Ham (Ham where are you I miss you). In between the relative concepts there must be something. (It is not Nothingness that separates high quality from low quality). That something is Quality. Quality is the knife that divides a pie into a larger piece and a smaller piece. Without Quality there would be no differences. I spoke of this in the distant past as the same concept which is used in terms of the Higgs Field. That is, the idea that something outside of energy and mater is needed for energy and matter to differentiate. This is called the Higgs Field which had its effect shortly after the big bang. I suppose Higgs Field could also be considered a product of Tao. The Tao creates the One (Higgs field), which creates the two (energy and matter) which creates the three (the force which causes energy and matter to interact plus energy and matter), which creates all things (the physical world as we see it). This is not quite correct since the theory is that Energy and the Higgs Field existed, and that matter was created by the Higgs Field acting on energy, but it is only an analogy. Applying this to Quality, The Tao (The Way) gives rise to the One (Quality) which gives rise to the two (static and dynamic, or good and evil, or light and dark) which gives rise to the three (the two previously stated plus an interactive force) which gives rise to all things (Reality as we see it, the dance of the universe). Hope this is not too far out there. Cheers, Mark On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 6:04 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Okay, truth is seen as relative within the MoQ, relative to the individual > like in special relativity and general relativity. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Nov 24, 2011, at 8:24 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Marsha, >> >> Yes, certainly do not reject a term without consideration. The goal >> is to evaluate what is useful towards imparting meaning to MoQ. This >> is what is meant by philosophical discussion. Along those lines, we >> could consider the analogies provided by the Catholic Church as worthy >> of consideration. Perhaps the notion that Christ died on the Cross >> has meaning within MoQ. If, after discussion, we agree that it should >> not, then we omit it. Any such rejection can always be revisited by >> anyone if a reasonable case is put forth. >> >> dmb is providing such consideration to the term of Relativism which he >> finds not compatible with MoQ. If you have your reasons to consider >> it compatible, explain why, as you do with the post copied below. You >> may have to continue to provide rhetoric in different ways as to why >> it is important. However, you should give the same consideration to >> Greek Orthodoxy which has much in common with MoQ. Do not summarily >> reject the preachings of St. Paul without evaluation. The same can be >> said for Hinduism, Buddhism, Protestantism, Capitalism and so forth. >> What the aim is, is to bring value to MoQ and make it a world >> philosophy. >> >> Just for clarification, the Quantum point-of-view does not include >> relativity. This is because the concept of Relativity does not find >> much usefulness in Quantum physics. However, if you feel that >> relativity does belong in Quantum physics, then by all means, provide >> your reasons. Relativity is used in the General Theory of Relativity, >> and its more specific application in terms of moving clocks which is >> termed the Special Theory of Relativity. You probably know this since >> you are fond of bringing physics into the mix. The metaphysical >> implications of the General Theory are unclear, although Godel tried >> to do just that. He attempted to bridge the notion of time as it is >> seen by cosmologists, that is a fabric know as "space-time", and our >> intuitive knowledge of time. His result was that time cannot exist. >> These are the difficulties when trying to apply concepts in physics >> (that is the introduction of artificial systems of measurement) to >> what we term metaphysics. >> >> I look forward to more discussions on why you feel Relativism is >> important to MoQ. >> >> Cheers, >> Mark >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:31 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> As philosophy grapples with the implications of quantum physics, new >>> points-of-view are evolving which challenge scientific materialism. >>> Consciousness is being released from its confinement in the brain. Special >>> relativity, general relativity, superposition, nonlocality, complementarity >>> are new concepts being explored. When 'relativity' is such an important >>> consideration in the new physics, it would be foolish to reject the therm. >>> I am not trying to exclude any term. It's the small-minded who are trying >>> to conflate, confuse and reject a term. I am not trying to label the MoQ >>> as a form of Relativism. Truth is seen as relative within the MoQ, >>> relative to the individual like in the Quantum point-of-view. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 > 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
