dmb, How do I square? I do not need to find the square of any of your statements. :-) You are quite entitled to your view with its evidence.
Conventional reality IS relative truth within Buddhism. Marsha On Sep 25, 2010, at 3:03 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > 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 ___ 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
