David, On Sep 8, 2013, at 5:30 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [Marsha] >> I prefer to keep discussions very simple and *try* to probe deeper. Is this >> a problem? > > [djh] > No, that's fine. But I'll be sure to respond to only certain points of yours > in the future to avoid wasting time now that I know this is your preferred > approach. > >> [Marsha] >> Is there no idea in my response worth pursuing? If not, then maybe you have >> a specific question to ask? Or is there another statement you made that >> you'd prefer to explore. I'm interested in what we can know and how can we >> know it. > > [djh] > Me too. That, along with lots of other things of course :-) > >> [Marsha] >> Without dismissing the idea with some proclamation of 'absolute, amoral, >> cultural relativism,' what does it mean when Nagarjuna states that all truth >> is relative and conventional? >> >> If Buddhism's conventional truth in some ways equates to the MoQ's static >> quality, where is the agreement? Is there disagreement? > > [djh] > I think Buddhism's relation to the MOQ is nicely summarised by RMP in the > following passage to McWatt: > > "The MOQ sees the wheel of karma as attached to a cart that is going > somewhere - from quantum forces through inorganic forces and biological > patterns and social patterns to the intellectual patterns that perceive the > quantum forces. In the sixth century B.C. in India there was no evidence of > this kind of evolutionary progress, and Buddhism, accordingly, does not pay > attention to it. Today it’s not possible to be so uninformed. The suffering > which the Buddhists regard as only that which is to be escaped, is seen by > the MOQ as merely the negative side of the progression toward Quality (or, > just as accurately, the expansion of quality). Without the suffering to > propel it, the cart would not move forward at all. " Marsha: I've mentioned before that I think that the type of suffering addressed by Buddhism is the gumption trap variety, and to rid oneself of that type of suffering is to gain a centered, peace-of-mind. That doesn't alleviate all pain, nor all problems. There still will be such situation to propel that cart forward. > When Nagarjuna states that all truth is relative and conventional he is > merely pointing to the small self static patterns of Buddhism. These > patterns *are not the focus of Buddhism* (unlike the MOQ) as they cause > suffering which is to be escaped. Whereas in the MOQ this suffering is seen > as a necessary part of the evolutionary process in order for things to get > better... Marsha: Yes, and I am fascinated by seeing this 'relative and conventional reality' as patterns. I think my interest was primed by reading 'The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge' by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann. It was primed, but RMP's explanation is so much more appealing and powerful. Regardless, I am still very interested in the Buddhist point-of-view, for it requires one to develop a deep insight into the nature of one's own mind. This empirical approach very much appeals to me. It has been the path to direct experience. One can investigate the interdependency between value and consciousness: "Consciousness can be described is a process of defining Dynamic Quality." The MoQ, as a bridge between East and West, allows for movement back and forth and considering the best of both worlds. Buddhism also has it's vehicle for making things better: the eight-fold path. > Anyway, ideally some sort of response, even disagreement, to the words below > would be nice too.. > >> [Marsha] > >> With "Check the archives." given as evidence, I can only laugh at the use of >> the word(logic), and I do laugh. Lots! But yes, it is all about what we >> value and checking it against experience. > > [djh] > It is all about what we value. But I think we need to do more than check > something against our experience. What if, as you say, our experience is > different? Our 'personal life histories and circumstance' is different? Can > we then just never see the value in what someone else says? The great thing > about the intellectual level of the MOQ provides a way for us to test how > good something is with the aid of logical consistency and economy of > explanation as well. What if I have never experienced hail before but I have > experienced rain and I have experienced ice. Then in this case I can know > what hail is using logic and very rough explanation of Rain + Ice = Hail. > Then when other folks refer to hail - I'll know what it is, even if I've > never experienced it before. Marsha: RMP has said that "Truth is not supposed to be determined by social popularity." So then, by what zero-point or specific standards are logical consistency and economy of explanation to be determined? > Logic has its valuable use beyond our own personal experience and can point > to us things which are valuable which we might not have experienced > otherwise. This is why logic on this discussion board is good. This is why > explaining things and talking through things on this discussion board is > good. Because if we do these things then we can discover things which are > good which we might not have experienced otherwise. Marsha: Are you talking about formal logic or some kind of common sense? I have never said or thought discussions were bad. 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
