dmb,

I guess I need to repeat myself, so here goes:       


On Sep 28, 2010, at 10:33 PM, MarshaV wrote:
> 
> 
> Maybe you should write to the various Buddhist communities to convince them 
> to refrain from stating that 'relative truth' is the conventional way we 
> perceive reality.  Until then I'm not much interested in what you think on 
> cognitive relativism.   In fact, that's why I don't want to discuss with you, 
> dmb. I think you don't really know what you're talking about.   Sorry.
> 

Marsha   









On Oct 5, 2010, at 4:11 PM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> 
> Marsha said:
> RELATIVITY:
> the tallest dwarf
> meeting the smallest giant
> - same size
> 
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> 
> No, that's not what relativity means. Relativity means there is no standard 
> by which to measure things like truth and moral values. 
> 
> What you have above is merely three sets of relations.
> 
> The dwarf is tallest in relation to other dwarves.
> The giant is the smallest when compared to other giants.
> In relation to each other, the dwarf and the giant are the same size. 
> 
> As a practical matter, these relations do not depend on one's perspective or 
> worldview. It just depends on whether or not you can get all the dwarfs and 
> giants to stand next to a measuring tape. That's how you know you've got the 
> tallest dwarf in the first place. That's how you know all other giants are 
> bigger. These are quantifiable facts and all three sets of relations are true 
> at the same time without contradiction. The term "relative" can be used to 
> mean "in relation to" or "by comparison with" but that doesn't have anything 
> to do with the objectionable philosophical stance known as relativism. If we 
> say the dwarf is relatively tall, we don't mean his height cannot be 
> determined or that his height depends on one's understanding of the term 
> "tall". 
> 
> 
> Words and concepts are relational in a similar way. As I like to point out, 
> the meaning of the terms "static" and "dynamic" is relational in the sense 
> that "static" means the opposite of dynamic and "Dynamic" means the opposite 
> of static. The meaning of each term is depends on not being the other, the 
> same way hot and cold or short and tall define each other by opposition. 
> Words also derive their meaning by virtue of their relation to context in 
> which the term is being used. "Tall" can mean "highly exaggerated" when we're 
> talking about tales, it can refer to the shape of a cocktail glass when 
> talking to a bartender, it can mean "difficult" when we're talking about tall 
> orders and tall obstacles. It can refer to a proud posture or walking style 
> as well as actual height. Many words are very flexible and have many 
> different meanings depending on the context but again this is to say that 
> meaning is relational, not relative to the user. Words mean what they mean in 
> relation to o
 th
> er words and in relation to the context in which it's being used. In other 
> words, we can't isolate the meaning of a term because it derives it's meaning 
> from the whole language system. This is the net of jewels idea applied to 
> words. Similarly, some philosophers talk about our "web" of beliefs. This 
> image get across the idea that some concepts are more central than others, 
> which is probably true.
> 
> 
> Compared to the top of Mount Everest and the tallest short guy, the Empire 
> State Building is shorter and taller at the same time. These are not relative 
> truths or opposed claims or two different views. It's merely two different 
> comparisons, two different facts. The building is never going to be taller 
> than the mountain and it'll never be shorter than any person, not even the 
> tallest giant. I don't mean to be some kind of yard-stick fundamentalist. I'm 
> just saying that relations are just as real as anything else and it's a part 
> of what it means for something to be true and right. This could be called 
> relationalism or relationism or wholism or contextualism or situationalism. 
> But relativity or relativism is something else entirely. It's the 
> philosophical equivalent of combining halitosis with leprosy. 
> 
> 
>                                         
> 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

Reply via email to