DMB, Steve, Ron, DMB, said "I think .... that absolutism and relativism are both objectionable, .... and that the best way is the middle way between those extremes ..... it is the views, not the labels, that are important."
I'd probably elaborate on views ... say, the way views are put into action - to explain and to decide - to relate action and experience. Steve said Rorty sees the pragmatist tradition not as defining truth as "warranted assertability" but instead as making the suggestion that we stop looking for a theory of truth and focus on how we justify our beliefs. It is only in talking about justification that we start considering things like "intersubjective agreement" and "warranted assertibility." OK, Justification ... explain & decide action (based on experience and beliefs) ... that's kind what I was suggesting. Steve also said "I don't think you'd want to use the word relativism at all unless you encounter someone who takes the self-defeating position that nothing is better or worse than anything else." Steve also quote Pirsig from Lila's Child - avoiding any "absolutist" or "foundationalist" view of MoQ. I would say all that is fundamental about the MoQ is the evolutionary framework it provides - the grid-iron - the quality of pure / immediate experience being indefinable by design. I see violent agreement on the middle ground that MoQ provides. Any need to "attack" (or defend) Rorty just seems spurious ? Ian 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
