dmb, I have said that the MoQ is epistemologically relative (sq) and ontologically indeterminate (DQ), and that is what I mean when I call myself a relativist.
Marsha On Sep 25, 2010, at 2:21 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > Marsha: > > So you have several fake reasons for your evasion this time; 1) You were only > kidding and 2) There is a big difference between saying "reality is whatever > you want" and saying "reality is whatever you think". Apparently you think > the former misrepresents your views and somehow you believe the textual > evidence from ZAMM leaves your actual view in tact and 3) You have no desire > to defend yourself. > > I'd be interested to know what you think the difference is. Either way, your > view is some kind of whateverism. Either way, my criticism is of the notion > that the MOQ is a form of relativism. Do you really think it is a > misrepresentation to say your view is relativism? Haven't you said so > yourself? > > Look, I presented you with the evidence against relativism and simply asked > you if the quote sounded like an expression of relativism. And the fact is > you continue to respond to everything BUT the actual point and the actual > evidence. Am I the bad guy for calling attention to these unscrupulous > evasion tactics? Or are you the bad guy for using these unscrupulous evasion > tactics? Like I said, you deserve a lot more grief than you get. Your > responses are dishonest, unfair, unkind, irresponsible and often downright > flakey - especially when it comes to my objections. A decent thinker would > respect the evidence. How would you characterize a person who refused to talk > about passages from the books we're here to discuss? How would you > characterize someone who firmly held a position contrary to the evidence > presented day after day? How would you characterize someone who made one > excuse after another instead of defending this contrary position? Is there a > way to characterize such be ha > vior that isn't insulting? If there is a non-insulting way to complain about > that kind of bullshit, I'd like to know what it is. > > > > > > >> From: [email protected] >> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:34:57 -0400 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [MD] william James. >> >> >> dmb, >> >> You have again misrepresented what I have said. For example, I have made >> the correction many times that I have NEVER said "reality is whatever you >> WANT." I have said "reality is whatever you think." There is a big >> difference between the two statements. But you continue to misrepresent my >> words. Whether your misinterpretation is a mistake or intentional, I have >> no desire to defend myself against fabrication. >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 25, 2010, at 12:38 PM, MarshaV wrote: >> >>> >>> dmb, >>> >>> So sorry, I should have used an e-motive. I was kidding :-) >>> >>> >>> Marsha >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 25, 2010, at 12:32 PM, david buchanan wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Marsha said to dmb: >>>> >>>> Oh my, have you had a realization? Or are you still going to hurl insults >>>> at me because I will not adopt the perspective you've concocted from your >>>> small portion of the flux-of-life? >>>> >>>> >>>> dmb says: >>>> >>>> A realization? No, not lately. Apparently you think James's statement >>>> about the need for "many cognizers" supports your view that reality is >>>> whatever we want it to be. Apparently, you think it supports your >>>> relativism. But of course that's exactly the interpretation I've been >>>> objecting to all along, isn't it? I think you are always interpreting >>>> pragmatism and the MOQ the way its uncomprehending critics always have; as >>>> a form of relativism. This is just one more example of conflating >>>> relativism with the plural and provisional nature of pragmatic truth. This >>>> is a criticism of your stance but the reason I "hurl insults" is separate >>>> from that. Those remarks are about your attitudes and conduct as a >>>> participant here. >>>> >>>> This particular response of yours, for example, belittles my view and it >>>> assigns a sinister motive to me, as if I were trying to make you adopt my >>>> perspective by calling you names. As I see it, I've been trying to make >>>> you understand what Pirsig and James are saying by presenting quotes and >>>> explanations. The "insults" are hurled at the way you respond to these >>>> reasonable arguments. In this case, I wasn't even talking to you and >>>> you've always maintained that you don't give a bunny's butt what James >>>> thinks. But somehow this is about you? >>>> >>>> As I see it, you have done everything to dismiss a mountain of evidence >>>> and you are constantly evading the actual issues. I find that very >>>> frustrating and very hard to respect. And so I call it like i see it and >>>> as I see it that sort of behavior deserves to be insulted. >>>> >>>> "What he neglected to say was that the selection of facts before you >>>> 'observe' them is 'whatever you like' ONLY IN A DUALISTIC, SUBJECT-OBJECT >>>> METAPHYSICAL SYSTEM! When Quality enters the picture as a third >>>> metaphysical entity, the preselection of fact is no longer arbitrary. The >>>> preselection of facts is not based on subjective, capricious 'whatever you >>>> like' but on QUALITY, which is reality itself. ...we know from Phaedrus' >>>> metaphysics that the harmony Poincare talked about is NOT SUBJECTIVE. It >>>> is the SOURCE of subjects and objects and exists in an anterior >>>> relationship to them. It is NOT capricious, it is the force that OPPOSES >>>> capriciousness; the ordering principle of all scientific and mathematical >>>> thought which DESTROYS capriciousness, and without which no scientific >>>> thought can proceed." (ZAMM, page 269, emphasis is Pirsig's in the >>>> original) >>>> >>>> Does that sound like relativism? Does that sound like Quality could be >>>> equated with chaos, as Krimel says? No, of course not. Just because there >>>> is more than one way to be right, because there can be more than one >>>> truth, does not mean you can't be wrong, or illogical or simply read with >>>> a low level of comprehension. There are lots of ways to be right but there >>>> are even more ways to be wrong. Some things just don't add up or make >>>> sense, not even to a pragmatist. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Marsha >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 25, 2010, at 10:37 AM, david buchanan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ian said: >>>>>> >>>>>> I can't see what it says to John's point about the redundancy ( non >>>>>> pragmatism ) of multiverses / many worlds ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> dmb says: >>>>>> >>>>>> Did John have a point about redundancy? >>>>>> >>>>>> In any case, here is the basic idea: John said, "I just don't see the >>>>>> need for a ridiculous kludge like multi-uni-verse". And I responded with >>>>>> a quote from James explaining the main idea behind this "ridiculous >>>>>> kludge": >>>>>> "The truth is too great for any one actual mind, even thought that mind >>>>>> be dubbed 'the Absolute,' to know the whole of it. The facts and worths >>>>>> of life need many cognizers to take them in. There is no point of view >>>>>> absolutely public and universal." (James says in the intro to his "Talks >>>>>> to Teachers") >>>>>> >>>>>> Basically, James is saying that there is no objective truth, no absolute >>>>>> reality. Life is too rich and thick to be nailed down by any single view >>>>>> or perspective. Each of us can only take so much from the flux of life, >>>>>> we can only select a certain slice or notice a small portion of >>>>>> experience. Each cognizer can only grapple with a handful of sand from >>>>>> an endless landscape of experience. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd add that "multi-verse" is probably the right word when talking about >>>>>> physics but this notion that life needs many cognizers is probably >>>>>> better referred to as a "pluralistic universe" simply because we are not >>>>>> living in different universes so much as we have many different ways to >>>>>> take it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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/md/archives.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ___ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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/md/archives.html >>>> >>>> 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/md/archives.html >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> >>> >>> 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/md/archives.html >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> >> 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/md/archives.html > > 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/md/archives.html ___ 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/md/archives.html
