Marsha said:
Here's is a broad definition of relativism by Ugo Zilioli: "Statements in a
certain domain can be deemed correct or incorrect only relative to some
framework"
dmb says:
Okay. That's a very vague version of the specific case I just made, which was
relativism as it relates to linguistic contexts. I believe that definition is
far too general to be meaningful here AND it comes from a defender of
relativism.
Marsha said:
Appealing to the authority of 'most postmodernists?' Is this the 'case' you
made?
dmb says:
Authority? I don't know what you're talking about. I merely described the
general position held by postmodern thinks in addition to the particular
position held by a specific thinker. Your objections and questions seem
increasingly insincere, like you're trying to complicate simple things on
purpose. Why?
dmb had said:
As I understand it, the MOQ agrees with contextualism (we're suspended in
language) and it agrees that these contexts are constructed (analogy upon
analogy) but it says these contexts are not constructed arbitrarily (Quality is
not arbitrary or capricious) and the pragmatic theory of truth does not abandon
empirical restraints (it has to agree with experience and function in
experience). These non-linguistic constraints distinguish the MOQ from this
relativism.
Marsha replied:
Where does the MoQ agree with contextualism? I thought the MoQ agreed with
Protagoras' Measure Doctrine. Arbitrary and capricious? Is 'arbitrary and
capricious' your definition of relativism?
dmb says:
All of the stuff I put in parentheses references Pirsig quotes. I can't tell
you what page it is where Pirsig agrees with the notion that "we're suspended
in language", where Pirsig says our world is built of analogies, where Pirsig
says that Quality is "not arbitrary or capricious". But you've seen them. You
know they're in there. And how can you ask about the measure doctrine as if I
hadn't just quoted Pirsig on that? He said virtue "was absolutely central to
their teaching, but how are you going to teach virtue if you teach the
relativity of all ethical ideas?" and "QUALITY! VIRTUE! DHARMA! THAT is what
the Sophists were teaching! NOT ethical relativism."?
Marsha said:
There is only one kind of truth individuals have knowledge of and that is
static quality, and that is relative to the "different static pattern of life
history" and the immediate direct experience. As I understand it, the MoQ
agrees with relativism (relative to experience).
dmb says:
Well I don't know how to distinguish that from solipsism or plain old
narcissism. I don't understand how you can relativism out of this stuff when
Pirsig is so plainly and explicitly saying that the Sophists were teaching
Quality and "not ethical relativism". Especially since he's saying that just as
the central quest of the whole book is finally resolved.
But you are at a distinct advantage being a relativist because that means you
can't really be wrong about relativism or anything else. Must be nice. Maybe I
should convert and then I can just respond to objections by saying, "well, it's
true for me" or "it's true in my context". That'll be so much easier. Ah, I
feel relieved of a great burden already. Thanks Marsha.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/
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/
