Arlo, I notice your reiteration of the idea that there are advocates of the idea that the MoQ is "a theism". I'm unsure where you got
Sent from my iPhone On Nov 23, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> 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
