Hi Marsha, What did you expect? We have some pretty rigorous definitionists patrolling the posts. For what it's worth, I liked it. All in good fun. Mark
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:22 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> 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
