Marsha: Like I keep saying, you are confusing relativism with the provisional nature of truth. The quotes from Ant's textbook are about the latter. Also, you are confusing relativism with the relational nature of things. To say that each thing exist in relation to other things is simply not at all the same as saying reality is whatever we think. To say that there are many truths is not at all the same thing as saying truth is whatever you think. Rejecting absolutism and objectivity does not mean we have to embrace relativism or solipsism. Your solipsistic relativism is even worse than objectivity, so much so that I think your interpretation constitutes an act of slander against the MOQ.
Do you really think provisional truth is the same a relativism? Do you really think pluralism is the same as relativism? What do you have to say about the passages from Pirsig wherein he distances himself from various kinds of relativism, where he talks about the felt harmony and the ordering principle of Quality, where he talks about how Quality destroys capriciousness and arbitrariness? How do you square your relativistic view of the MOQ with Pirsig claims about Quality (Rt) referring to the "first, created, beautiful repetitive order of moral and esthetic correctness" and "the cosmic order of things" and "the value force that chooses an elegant mathematical solution to a laborious one , or a brilliant experiment over a confusing, inconclusive one"? How do square relativism with the empirical demands of the pragmatic theory of truth? How do you square relativism with Pirsig's view of Plato as a slanderer? How do you square relativism with Pirsig's concern that Nazis could've claimed to be acting pragmatically from their point of view? Do you see the moral implications of that last question? Morally and intellectually, relativism is a disaster waiting to happen. I'm talking about the real world consequences of our beliefs. If we believe that there are no constraints upon belief, then we do not have freedom so much as we have chaos and degeneration and the truth claims that win will only be the ones with guns and money behind them. As far as I'm concerned, your view is intellectually bogus and morally vacuous. You might as well be Satan's lawyer. > From: [email protected] > Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:50:54 -0400 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] william James. > > > Truth as relative: > > Anthony writes: > “Intellectual values include truth, justice, freedom, democracy and, > trial by jury. It’s worth noting that the MOQ follows a pragmatic > notion of truth so truth is seen as relative in his system while > Quality is seen as absolute. In consequence, the truth is defined > as the highest quality intellectual explanation at a given time. > > RMP: > If the past is any guide to the future this explanation must be taken > provisionally; as useful until something better comes along. One can > then examine intellectual realities the same way he examines paintings > in an art gallery, not with an effort to find out which one is the ‘real’ > painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of value. There are > many sets of intellectual reality in existence and we can perceive some > to have more quality than others, but that we do so is, in part, the result > of our history and current patterns of values. (Pirsig, 1991, p.103)” > > (McWatt,Anthony,MOQ Textbook) > > > > "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) > > > > "Buddhism is the home of relativism, since in a Buddhist view, there is no > absolute. Buddhist reality arises co-dependently. Everything then, is > relative." > (http://www.buddhanet.net/cane-toads.htm) > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
