On Feb 6, 2010, at 5:55 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > > 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: Or that framework could be 'different static pattern of life history' and immediate direct experience. > 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. Marsha: It was an appeal to authority, else why mention it. > dmb says: > Your objections and questions seem increasingly insincere, like you're trying > to complicate simple things on purpose. Why? I sincerely believe the MoQ relativistic. Why are you being misleading? First you state you made a case against relativism, but then you mention you meant a specific kind of relativism: truth relativism or cognitive relativism, which you have not yet clearly defined. Is cognitive relativism defined as "suspended in language". Is cognitive relativism clearly defined as "suspended in language?" What do you mean by language? Are static patterns of value words only? Our oral communications may be suspended in language, but is that all there is to patterns? Are memory, thought, understand and selfhood nothing more than language? > 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: RMP was denying that the Sophists were teaching an anything-goes ethical relativism like Plato and Aristotle had accused Protagoras of teaching. Which, by the way, have been determined to be weak and trumped up charges to support their arguments. Of course Quality is not arbitrary or capricious, and would not be if the MoQ is understood to be relativistic either. RMP states that reality (conventional) is made up of static patterns of value which are different for individual dependent on static histories and direct experience. That means static patterns of value are different because they are relative to history and context. "The reason there is a difference between individual evaluations of quality is that although Dynamic Quality is a constant, these static patterns are different for everyone because each person has a different static pattern of life history. Both the Dynamic Quality and the static patterns influence his final judgment. That is why there is some uniformity among individual value judgments but not complete uniformity." (RMP, SODV) > > 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. And I don't know how you can link relativism to solipsism or plain old narcissism unless you mind tends to that direction. > dmp says: > 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. Because he was denying the anything-goes ethical relativism that Plato charged Protagoras with teaching. And it was resolved by understanding Plato was misleading for his own purposes. That is what RMP understood. imho. > 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. Baloney. > 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. Relativism, in my book, does not mean everything is of equal value. People can come together to determine the best, the most intelligent, course of action based on their collective experiences. 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/
