Mark, p.s. I think the haiku was about stars, but that still makes it relative.
Marsha On Oct 6, 2010, at 2:22 AM, MarshaV wrote: > > Mark, > > I thought it just a sweet haiku indicating that each individual has > their own path. Sorry it became something else. > > > Marsha > > > > > > > > On Oct 6, 2010, at 1:25 AM, 118 wrote: > >> Yea, I agree DMB, relativity is a pretty useless concept. Now >> relationalism, that is a whole 'nother story. And I'm not talking about the >> opposite of absolutism, I'm talkin' Quality. >> >> I don't have any relatives that are dwarfs, so I can't comment on Marsha's >> giant. >> >> Mark >> >> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 1:11 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]>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 oth >>> 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 > > > > ___ > > > 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
