Hi David,

The confusion is in the use of the term "relative".  If a flower
springs from a particular plant, would that flower be "relative" to
the plant?  I suppose we could say so.  Would the weather here where I
live be relative to Ventura, CA?  I suppose we could say that.  But
what are we saying?  We are saying that such flower and such weather
arises from certain conditions which have specific delineating
specifications.

So, let us assume that truth is like a flower or like the weather.
This would mean that a particular truth can only come forth following
a specific set of circumstances.  This would make truth "relative" to
conditional prerequisites.  When somebody claims that truth is
relative, what they are saying is that one's appreciation of truth
follows certain fundamental guidelines or conditions.  What the
proponents of such relative truth is also saying is they they fully
understand truth and how it arises.  Personally I find this hard to
believe, yet they insist that it is so.

I think this comes from bringing truth down to a "state of mind".
This is the negative influence of modern psychology in today's world.
Everything is a "state of mind" these days.  Even the concept of a
"state of mind" is "state of mind", and so on.  This modern psychology
is no better than Relativism.  It is self-destructive in a recursive
way.  It is a snake eating its own tail and (poof!) vanishing from
existence.  But the snake keeps having babies, so we get vanishing
after vanishing, and nobody becomes the wiser.

Some would tell you that MoQ is relative and "a state of mind".  Well
those people will suddenly "poof!" disappear.  The incredible
relativity disappearance act (the now infamous IRDA).  It is sad to
watch the self destruction simply because they should know better.
The argument against any "real better" would be:  "Hey Chum, how can
anything really be better since we are standing on the quicksand of
reality?"  To which you reply:  "Listen Pal, sorry, but you are the
one who walked into the quicksand.  Me? I am on solid ground, I can
stand on "the better".  Just do not move too much or you will sink
deeper, later dude."

So long,
Mark

On 2/6/12, David Harding <davidjharding@gmai...> wrote:
> Hi Marsha,
>
>> I take truths to be static patterns, so in the MoQ truth is relative to an
>> individual's static pattern history and the dynamic quality in the present
>> event.
>
> I think truths can be ranked based on how good they are; independent of the
> individual.  In other words, Quality truly is universal.
>
> In fact, I think that the term 'individual' is just a convenient one to use
> for static patterns of the past.  Truth is in no way bound by these patterns
> as you seem to imply.
>
> -David.
> 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