On Feb 7, 2010, at 1:05 PM, david buchanan wrote:
>
> Marsha said: ...
> 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 says:
> Oh, I see. You're confused about the difference between contextualism and
> relativism or rather you think they are the same thing. As I tried to explain
> already, one can accept contextualism without also being a relativist. Here's
> how my computer's wiki puts it...
> "ContextualismContextualism describes a collection of views in philosophy
> which emphasize the context in which an action, utterance, or expression
> occurs, and argues that, in some important respect, the action, utterance, or
> expression can only be understood relative to that context.[1] Contextualist
> views hold that philosophically controversial concepts, such as "meaning P,"
> "knowing that P," "having a reason to A," and possibly even "being true" or
> "being right" only have meaning relative to a specified context. Some
> philosophers[2] hold that context-dependence may lead to relativism;[3]
> nevertheless, contextualist views are increasingly popular within
> philosophy.[4]"
>
> Notice that part where it says, "SOME philosophers hold that
> context-dependence MAY LEAD TO relativism"? That's what I'm talking about. To
> say we are "suspended in language" means the acceptance of contextualism but
> not necessarily of relativism. The former MAY lead you to the latter but it
> doesn't have to. That's what I'm talking about. And what kind of
> contextualism DOES lead to relativism? The kind that says memory, thought,
> understanding and selfhood are nothing more than language and that there is
> nothing outside of language. Remember those slogans from postmodern thinkers
> like "there is nothing outside the text" and "it's text all the way down" and
> such? That's why people like Rorty are criticized as being a kind of
> linguistic idealist. The MOQ, by contrast, says that there is non-linguistic
> experience and there is something very, very important outside the text,
> outside of language.
>
>
> Marsha said:
> 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:
> The kind of contextualism that leads to relativism would say that our context
> was constructed arbitrarily and capriciously but the MOQ says these contexts
> have evolved as a response to Quality, which prevents it from being arbitrary
> and capricious. Thus contextualism does not lead to relativism. This doesn't
> mean that our context is right and true in every way or even in most ways.
> But the patterns of culture would not persist unless they had value of some
> kind, unless they "worked" on some level. This fits quite nicely with
> Pirsig's reading of Protagoras' measure doctrine.
>
> "'Man is the measure of all things'. Yes, that's what he is saying about
> Quality. Man is not the SOURCE of all things, as the subjective idealist
> would say. Nor is he the passive observer of all things, as the objective
> idealists and materialist would say. The Quality which creates the world
> emerges as a RELATIONSHIP between man and his experience. He is a PARTICIPANT
> in the creation of all things. The MEASURE of all things - it fits. And they
> taught rhetoric - that fits. The one thing that doesn't fit...." is
> relativism.
>
>
> When we say that our perspective is "relative" to a context, that only means
> it is related or exists in relation to. But you're taking that as a
> definition of relativism but that's just contextualism. As it so happens
> there are lots of philosophers who think one necessarily leads to the other,
> that it's the only reasonable place to go with contextualism, but it seems
> pretty clear that they can't really reach that conclusion unless they also
> buy into the basic assumptions of scientific materialism. In fact lots of
> them come at the issue from a Marxist-Freudian point of view, or what's
> called "critical theory". In the case of Rorty, this materialism takes the
> shape of things like "verbal behaviorism", "eliminative materialism" and
> "non-reductive physicalism". I mean, part of the difference between Pirsig
> and these relativist has to do with very basic metaphysical assumptions.
>
> Try thinking about this a bit. Look into it. Your passion on this topic seems
> to be way out of proportion. This issue has been raging in philosophy since
> before Royce accused James of relativism over a hundred years ago and it's
> been a very hot topic for 50 years. I'm reading relatively new books about
> pragmatism wherein the issue just about steals the show. But when I try to
> explain the context of this debate and the positions of the various parties
> involved in it, you seem to resent it as an appeal to authority. WTF? When
> did "comprehension" become some kind of evil? When did intellectual
> competence become a form of oppression? I must have been out sick that day
> cause I don't remember that ever happening.
Marsha:
You haven't given a clear definition of what you are calling 'relativism'.
Linking relativism to pejorative terms doesn't work for me.
"Mores, determinants, norms . . . these were the jargon terms of sociology into
which they converted things they wanted to attack. That's how you know when
you're within a walled city, Phaedrus thought. The jargon. They've cut
themselves off from the rest of the world and are speaking a jargon only they
can really understand."
(LILA, Chapter 4)
Look into it? Your assumptions that I haven't are telling. Should I try to
impress you with my reading list?
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/
