Marsha said to 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.
dmb says:
The phrase "epistemologically relative" is contradictory. Relativism is what
you get when you don't have an epistemological position, when you think there
are no standards by which to test or measure truth. The MOQ subscribes to an
expanded form of empiricism. Pragmatism is a theory of truth and radical
empiricism is also an epistemological position. They both say there are
standards and tests for truth. Relativists say there are aren't. Empiricism and
relativism are approximately opposite.
I don't really know what "ontologically indeterminate" is supposed to mean but
it doesn't matter because DQ is an empirical reality, not an ontological one.
James's term for it was "pure experience" and Pirsig calls it an event, the
cutting edge of experience and the primary empirical reality. The MOQ is about
experience all the way down to subatomic particles. Philosophy just doesn't get
any more empirical than that.
So what you mean by relativism, apparently, is a logical contradiction on top
of a category error. Let's just say that's not exactly a brilliant or elegant
idea. And you've added contradiction and error to construct an idiosyncratic
definition of the central term in question! And I'm just talking about one
claim in one sentence! Whew! To say the least, that's quite a mess.
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
