Dave, Nice post, and it answers my questions in regard to what is meant when one refers to relativism in regard to Pragmatism and why it does not agree with Pirsigs point of view. Thank you for the explaination and its nice to have your input and posts to read again. -Ron
----- Original Message ---- From: david buchanan <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, February 7, 2010 1:05:39 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Intellect's Symposium 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. _________________________________________________________________ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/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/ 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/
