Hi Marsha, Thanks Sent laboriously from an iPhone, Mark
On Dec 13, 2011, at 11:05 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 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
