Ron, On Sep 8, 2013, at 2:15 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote:
Marsha to djh: I'm interested in what we can know and how can we know it. 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? [Ron] If you are interested in the epistological content you must admit that epistimology concerns the "conventional" and what I can ascertain from Nagarjuna when stated that ALL truth is relative and conventional is that ALL truth is socially determined. Marsha: Yes, I am interested in static quality. I take "relative and conventional" to mean dependent upon innumerable conditions, dependent upon parts and the collection of parts, dependent upon conceptual designation. [Ron] But this must be admitted then that ALL meaning is socially determined. But does this also mean that the thoughts expressed in language are also socially determined? are the tests in experience socially determined or merely the rules by which society authenticates language. Marsha: I don't understand your question. [Ron] When we are speaking about meaning we are speaking of the utility in experience which authenticates whetther it be socially affimed or not. So, What then does Nagarjuna mean when making the distinction between conventional and ultimate truth? Is what is being discussed the social authentication vs the individual experience or are both "conventional"? and "ultimate" referes to an abstraction or a place holder for the uncertain and unknowable.? Marsha: RMP stated that truth is not supposed to be determined by social popularity. I am not clear on exactly what you are saying. Explanations are conventional, and Nagarjuna must use conventional language and relative truths to teach and point the way to the ultimate goal, nirvana. In the same way RMP uses convention static patterns to point the way to Dynamic Quality, the moon. Imho. [Ron] I think we must first hash this out before we can determine if there is agreement, where, and disagreement and where. Marsha: Again, I am not clearly understanding your statement. Tricky business to keep the two views separate in explanations. Of course it would be easier not to try. What would be better yet would be to develop a mindfulness/meditation and see for yourself, directly. Words are a poor substitute, at least for me. For instance, I definitely do value static quality. It's all we've got. 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
