On Feb 1, 2010, at 4:53 PM, [email protected] wrote: > On 1 Feb 2010 at 11:46, MarshaV wrote: > >> >> On Feb 1, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Steven Peterson wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Hi Marsha, >>>> >>> >>> Marsha: >>> >>>> This didn't answer the question, but did put words in my mouth >>>> that were not said. >> >>>> Sjteve: >>>> I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I was referring to this: >>> >>> Marsha previously: >>> Would you gentlemen explain how if context and history are key factors in >>> determining truth (conventional), why can it not be said that truth >>> (conventional) is relative to context and history? It seems obvious: truth >>> (conventional) is relative. >> >> Marsha: >> You made no reference to my post of Jan 30, 2010, at 1:43 AM.; how was I >> to guess? I do not agree that the charge of relativism should be considered >> an extreme. One can assume it is an extreme, of course, but on what basis? >> >> >> >> Marsha > > Hi Marsha, > > It's extremely incoherent to assert as true that truth is relative. But, in > this day and age, incoherence is often celebrated, as pronouncements > by progressives (we can spend our way to prosperity) and "modern" art > paintings attest. >
Hi Platt, I said static (conventional) truth is relative. Is knowledge anything other that static patterns of value? Absolute truth is beyond my comprehension. - Incoherent to whom, and how is it determined? Would it be incoherent to Aristotle (the Law of Non-Contradiciton, or the Law of the Excluded Middle)? Where is it stated as a incoherence within the MoQ? 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
