Hi dmb,
On Sep 20, 2012, at 6:07 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Marsha said to dmb: > Why is it that nine out of ten of your posts include some attack on my > statements or me? > > dmb says: > Because your statements are full of contradictory nonsense, wild distortions > and other kinds of errors, obviously. There would be no point in attacking > clear, coherent statements, obviously. If there were 70 hours a day, I still > wouldn't have enough time to correct all of your mistakes, but I do what I > can. > By the way, the phrase "dear reader" is used to indicate that the comment is > being addressed to anyone who is reading the comment. As far as I know, it > has never been used to add authority to anything or anyone. I can even > imagine how that would that work. > > Marsha said to dmb: > Gotta love your "truths are true" statement. Great clarity! And the "in > relation to experience" is just your cowardly way of avoiding the word > 'relative'. > > > dmb says: > Absolutism and relativism are polar opposites. Pragmatism is neither. It is > the middle way as it sits between those polar opposites. > > The statement (truths are true in relation to experience) has nothing to do > with relativism. It is a claim about the relationship between static quality > and Dynamic Quality. It is a statement about where truth fits within the > structure of the MOQ. It's not surprising that would misunderstand this and > issue another bogus statement that's so obviously worthy of criticism. Just > about everything you say needs to be corrected. What's worse, you dismiss > these corrections without ever addressing them or even understanding them. > These errors pile up and get all tangled up in each other so that the > confusion is deep and knotted and gnarly. I doubt if you'll ever find your > way out of that mountainous mess, but I do what I can. > > You're welcome. Please go ahead and correct away if you need to. I am convinced that nonsensical correcting is best you can do. This is especially true since I have already agreed that 'truth' is an _intellectual static pattern of value_, along with justice, freedom, democracy and, trial by jury; it is an intellectual explanation. "Intellectual values include truth, justice, freedom, democracy and, trial by jury. It’s worth noting that the MOQ follows a pragmatic notion of truth so truth is seen as relative in his system while Quality is seen as absolute. In consequence, the truth is defined as the highest quality intellectual explanation at a given time." (MoQ Textbook) I find it more useful to label objects of knowledge (stuff contained in an encyclopedia) as 'static patterns of value' ("patterns") rather than 'truths'. RMP selected the best word when he chose 'patterns'; it offers the best representation. If you think it is confusing that I go along with RMP's vernacular, I suggest that it is you who is confused. If you check the dictionary 'relative' is 'something having a relation or connection to something else'. So when you wrote "in relation to experience" it is just your cowardly way of avoiding the word 'relative'. And writing that "truth is true" in any context is not a proper definition; it is circular. 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
