Hi Carl, Thanks for your post, and yes, I believe the question pertains to MoQ.
Under the rubric of "survival" (which is often used to explain evolutionism), I agree with your presentation. If we move into the stratosphere of contemplation or thought, we can categorize comparison, or relativity, as one form of thought and consider other ways in which we can interpret the world. Indeed, for survival we must place a snake into the immediate realm of its direct relevance to the situation we find ourselves. If what we think is a snake is actually a rope, then we can contemplate what this mistake means in a broader sense. In the same way we can consider what our conceptualizing of the world as relative means, and what the alternatives are. In my opinion, Quality cannot be addressed through comparison, putting it outside of Relativism. In the same way, MoQ can be considered on its own, rather than its relationship with other forms of thought. Using this method, the "qualities" of things can also be seen as not relative to each other. If we are presented with a good apple and a bad apple, we choose. Choosing is a process of comparison. But if we question what does a good apple v a bad apple mean intrinsically it is possible to remove ourselves from the relative framework. I think this goes to the heart of MoQ, where Quality is presented as a fundamental noun. It is easy to couch our understanding using strict concepts such as ephemeral, co-dependent, or non-inherent to help us cope with questions we have, but these are relative concepts used to oppose equally valid concepts such as permanence and inherent existence. We fall into the trap of stating that change a permanent process which then leaves us with an independent and inherent existence. One strategy is to get away from this Yin Yang approach and view MoQ differently. That is from a place which is neither inherent or non-inherent, neither "ever-changing" or permanent. This is what I believe Buddhism means by "the middle way". The idea is to let go of these concepts that we cling to. In my opinion, the Zen approach does just this. It is a mix of Mahayana Buddhism and Taoism. It addresses the "moment" as permanent, and requires constant reincarnation to provide some consistency to what we see as a continuous self. It emphasizes the usefulness of paying attention to the moment. So, I do not necessarily question the usefulness of placing everything within a relative framework. What I am trying to explore are the limits of such usefulness and perhaps destructive tendencies of Relativism in our modern world. I believe we are allowed modes of theoretical thought that can remove us from everyday empiricism; I am not a positivist or a materialist in this sense. Words are intended to give us a sense of control over things, as has been philosophized through the ages. At the same time, words can also relinquish our sense of control. Neither of these approaches is adequate for MoQ, in my opinion. Mark On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Carl Thames <[email protected]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "118" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 2:41 PM > Subject: Re: [MD] The Relativist's journey > > >> So, let me ask you a different question: >> What is it deep down inside you (and possibly many others) that causes >> you to want to compare everything? > > > I've spent some time on this one, and I've pretty much come to the > realization that we're wired for pattern recognition. When we see something > we've never experienced before, we immediately try to categorize it based on > those things we HAVE experienced. I think this is part of a survival thing > with us. We can tell at a glance if "x" is dangerous to us or not. If we > take the time, we can refine that which allows us to tell a garter snake > from a crate snake, but you get the idea. Our first reaction is SNAKE = > BAD! Pattern recognition. Of interest, I have heard the argument that the > reason time seems to pass more quickly as we age is that we have a larger > catalog, and we don't have to spend time figuring things out. After enough > years, we've "been there, done that" and already know what it's about, so we > don't slow down and think about it. If we allow ourselves to become lazy, > (guilty) we do the same thing with concepts. We've heard something > similiar, therefore we categorize the new idea into an old category. > >> No, not a trick question, a question requesting understanding on my >> part. Relativism is only one way of looking at things, imo. > > > No, not a trick question, and IMHO a very relevant one. How do we handle a > confrontation with DQ? Do we immediately assign it to an SQ value? I think > we do, or we couldn't comprehend it at all. > >> Cheers, >> Mark > > > Just another opinion.... > > Carl > 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
