Hi Mark,
Try this: rel·a·tiv·ism noun Philosophy . any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativism Marsha On Dec 13, 2011, at 1:32 PM, 118 wrote: > Hi Ham, > As always, we differ slightly in our philosophies, and I do not want > to belabor that difference. I present some reply below simply as my > opinion on the subject. > > I appreciate your well thought out replies, and they force me to find > better ways to express my philosophy which in turn takes me to new > levels. For this I thank you. > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > [Mark had said in jest:] >>> Hmmm the use of a double negative sounds familiar from somewhere... >> >> >> You're alluding, of course, to my 'negated nothingness' theory of Difference >> creation. But that's a cosmology, not a doubly-negated attitude or >> persuasion. If one is opposed to opposition, does that make him an >> "anti-anti oppositionist"? If a politican is an anti-anti-conservative, >> does that mean he is a "moderate"? You see the problem, Mark? > > Mark: > Quite honestly I do not see much difference. Your double negation > seems to me to be no different from our "pulling out" from essence > that which delivers value. Excluding an exclusion (double negate) > takes us right back to "realizing" value from the all inclusive > Essence of potentiality. In common parlance this is called > "Creation". > > If a politician is an anti-anti-conservative it means he does not > associate himself with the anti-conservative movement. It does not > necessarily mean that he is a moderate. It just means that he is > against the stand of the anti-conservatives. If one is opposed to > opposition, it means that he does not believe that opposition is the > correct way to deal with things. Of course this is illogical semantic > nonsense, like "understanding our understanding". What does that > second phrase mean? Is it a squared function of some kind, or is it a > set of all sets kind of thing? Besides fear not, for everything I > tell you is wrong. Yes, even that. Don't get too caught up in the > logic behind rhetoric, it is meant to give you a picture, not an > equation. >> > [Mark before on Objective Reality] >>> This dictum of "objective reality as existence" is precisely what we >>> are questioning in order to formulate a more revealing picture. > > [Mark on the sense of Control]>> >>> A philosophical endeavor is to question this "control in our world". >>> I would submit that we "deal" with this world, but are far from >>> controlling it, and it is this sense of control which has led to our >>> current predicament (if such a thing exists). When we sail and use >>> the wind to propel us along, we are far from controlling the wind. >>> We are simply dealing with the wind as it presents itself, in the same >>> way that a river deals with the landscape it is flowing through. The >>> river cannot be said to "control" the terrain it is flowing through; >>> it cannot control those illusive forces which guide it from higher to >>> lower. >>> >> >> [Ham] >> Mark, I have said before that man's freedom is limited to the physical >> parameters of existence. By investigating and defining these parameters, >> however, we can predict tsunamis and hurricanes, identify dangerous or >> injurious environments, and thereby avoid situations that might otherwise >> harm us. Is this not a measure of control? > > I prefer the term adaptation, since it provides a more realistic > picture in my view. I can ask you, do we have control of our destiny? > If so, how? Do we have control over how our brain works? If so, > what part of the brain controls the rest of the brain? If our brain > is in control, then what controls it? I am not pointing to a world we > can only experience like a movie, I am questioning your sense of > control. From where does this control emanate? If it is spiritual, > where is the connection between the spiritual and the material? That > is, how does the spiritual become material? >> > > [Ham on the Proprietary Self and its relative existence] >>>> Secondly, when you say we "can't make any sense of the notion of >>>> descriptions of reality that are objective in the sense of being true >>>> without regard to human practice," aren't you comfirming the fact that >>>> existence is relative? And if human understanding is based on our >>>> experience of existence, the truths we derive from this experience must >>>> be relative as well. (One of them is that we live in a relational world, >>>> which neither proves nor disproves an ultimate, non-relational Reality.) >>> >>> > [Mark previously questioning the term relative as it pertains to > relativism of existence] >>> As I have questioned Marsha, I will ask you: Relative to what? What >>> is existence related to? What tool of comparison do we use to >>> juxtapose existence? >>> >>> A relational world is opposed to a relative world (how's that for a >>> dictum?). >> >> >> I don't see why you and Marsha have so much trouble with the relativity >> concept. The fact that experience is proprietary to each self means that >> knowledge is relative to the knower. Thus, if I am unable to swim, I have a >> different conception of the ocean than the swimmer does. Again, if you are >> allergic to peanuts, you will experience peanut brittle in a different way >> than I do. All events and objects are differentiated by the way we >> experience them, and that experience is relative and unique for each >> individual. So our knowledge of what is "good" or "bad", desirable or >> repulsive, is really subjective in essence. In other words, because Value >> is relative to the sensibility of the observer, very litle of what we know >> can be considered "universal truth". > > Mark > OK, I was caught up in Relativism. I did a google search on relative > and copied the first hit that came up and pasted the first three > definitions: > > rel·a·tive, adj. > 1. Having pertinence or relevance; connected or related. > 2. Considered in comparison with something else: the relative quiet of > the suburbs. > 3. Dependent on or interconnected with something else; not absolute. > > I was using the second definition, which is what I believe Relativism > uses, that is, your existence is compared to somebody elses existence. > > If we simplify this as you did, focusing on knowledge, I would say: > saying that knowledge is connected to the knower seems a bit > redundant. To say it is relative implies that personal knowledge and > the knower are two different things. Can there be a knower without > knowledge? Can there be knowledge without a knower? Your inability > to swim emanates from you, it is not connected to you, it IS you. > Perhaps a better term would be "emanate". Experience emanates from > each self, since we cannot distinguish the self and what it > experiences. > > emanate [ˈɛməˌneɪt] > vb > 1. (intr; often foll by from) to issue or proceed from or as from a source > 2. (tr) to send forth; emit > > Above you stated "very little is universal truth" which we can deal > with that at a later date since this has an impact on Essentialism. I > am curious on your use of the word "little". This word is a can of > worms, let's go fishing some time! >> > [Mark on the vagaries of Proof] >>> A proof is a structure which gives an axiom substance. However >>> such a proof is based on assumptions. The assumptions cannot be >>> proven although often the derived proof is then reversed to prove the >>> assumptions. We see accepted proofs fall apart with non-Euclidean >>> geometry, for example, simply because such "non" geometry does not >>> accept the Euclidean assumptions. When we do not accept that >>> objective reality is the ground from which to work from, your original >>> statement concerning such reality also falls apart. >> >> [Ham on the direct correlation between our assumptions and living experience] >> We get our "assumptions" from living experience. Even the laws of math and >> logic are derived experientially. The only "proof" we can ascertain is from >> those axioms that work. It's the scientific approach to knowledge that we >> call objective pragmatism. I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to prove >> here, but existentiality does provide a reliable and consistent "ground to >> work from", despite the relational differences in human perception. > > Ham, do you really think you get your assumptions from living > "experience"? What "experience" do you have that the existential > philosophers, that you like to bring in, "existed"? You assume that > this is the case (of course this is quite healthy for such structure > you emanate). What "experience" do you have that the earth travels > around the sun? I would claim that most of your assumptions have been > handed down to you through the written word, or some elderly tale. > Living experience has provided very little to you in the academic > setting except for faith in what you read. Again, I am not saying > that you are incorrect to place much value on these things that are > "passed along to you". But, most of it is in your head. > > The laws of math are NOT derived experientially. Perhaps you are > thinking of counting bushels of hay or something. I am speaking of > math, not its application. The math of physics is very different from > pure math. In set theory, what is the experience of "the set of all > sets?" Please point to that for me. What is the experience of > infinity? I have yet to bump into it in a dark alleyway. I have yet > to see 1+1=2 on my hikes through the mountains, and I have looked > under every rock. How is it that I can pragmatically experience that? > It does not exist outside of our heads. > > The scientific approach is putting one's hand in the shower to see if > it is hot, and then moving on to the enthalpy of vaporization from > there. It is collecting data, predicting a theory and then fitting > the data to that theory. Then using the theory to predict data to be > generated. Of course if the data is used to generate the theory, then > the theory will generate the data. Trouble is, out at the edges it > becomes difficult to fit the data back in, so the theory is expanded > to account for it. Sooner or later a better theory comes in for > fitting and generating data, and so it goes on an on ad infinitum. > It's like building a house and having to keep adding rooms for the new > children. Sooner or later it becomes more practical to just buy a new > house. These days we are trying to build a house that will house all > of our data. But there will still always be those edges requiring a > new room and eventually a new house. Of course I am not touching on > the "House of our Lord" (heh, heh). > > This is the process of creating a reality. What works today may not > work tomorrow. It is our subjective interpretation of what works that > belies the objectivity of science. > > If peasants put garlic on their doors, the vampires do not attack. > Therefore this idea "works" and proves the existence of vampires. > Much of science works through this "absence" methodology even thought > scientist do not realize they are creating a vampire. There is > nothing objective to it, we are connecting the stars in the sky as we > subjectively see fit. Newtonian mechanics is a constellation. > > >> You claim to be a scientist; yet a scientist would never form a conclusion >> from a flip of a coin or mere intuition. Instead he would examine the >> object, determine its composition and physical properties, and categorize it >> in relation to other objects of its type. The truth he arrives at is >> objective, and it's enough to satisfy our need for relational (i.e., >> empirical) knowledge. Metaphysical Truth is a different matter altogether, >> as it can only be "intuited", never experienced. Which is why I maintain >> that the simplest way to understand Reality is to acknowledge its two forms >> or modes: Essence and Existence. > > Yes, I claim to be a scientist only because I make a living at it. I > also claim to be many other things. I claim to be what I express or > emanate. For that is my Quality. All of what you present above is a > subjective interpretation of that which is "relative" to you. How do > you separate yourself from what you determine? How is it that what > you experience with your mind in your "physical properties evaluation" > is different from what you experience with your mind in terms of > metaphysics? You yourself said that knowledge is particular to the > knower. Does some knowledge somehow become unparticular? >> >> >> Do you really believe I'm caught up in the "dogmatic structure of the 21st >> century", Mark? > > Yup! All this talk of pragmatic knowledge and how science is devoid > of subjectivity. It seems to me that you are. You are happy with > making objects out of everything and labeling them all with words as > if that is what knowledge is all about. I see a cluttered mind (mine > is cluttered too, and I am currently using the maid service provided > by MoQ). > >> Perhaps it's because, unlike some cultists, I refuse to pretend that >> objective existence is an illusion, a myth or "pattern" of no significance. >> This is the reality you and I participate in, and the fact that it is >> impermanent sheds 'intuitive light' on the probability that there is a >> permanent reality underlying all existence. > > Perhaps you refuse to pretend that you are pretending. In this case > you could be an anti-anti-pretender. >> >> Peace, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours, >> Ham > > And you! > Mark >> >> 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
