On Nov 14, 2010, at 7:47 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > dmb said: > ... To say that truth is relative to a particular historical context simply > means that truth is not eternal, that it evolves, that it is never final. > But that doesn't mean that truth is JUST a matter of perspective. Provisional > truths are still constrained by empirical reality. > > Marsha replied: > Or stated another way stating it that truth is relative to an individual's > history of static value patterns. Your use of JUST is pejorative, and > nonsense. I don't see that this is saying something that negates the fact > that static quality is relative. > > dmb says: > You don't see how empirical restraints negate relativism? You don't see how > empirical reality keeps our truths from being JUST a matter of perspective? > This is not pejorative nonsense. This is the central point that you need to > comprehend. Relativism and empiricism are not compatible at all. The > relativist does not say that all truths are equally good. He simply thinks > there is no legitimate way to adjudicate between rival truths.
Marsha: Relativism denies there is an absolute truth in the choice, but does not deny the ability to choose better or worse within, for example, a system like the MoQ''s evolutionary, hierarchical structure. Or the choice may be made by judicial means. It does not deny the ability to disagree with a cultural norm. > dmb: > The empiricist says there IS a way to test these truths. They are tested in > experience and they work or they don't. Marsha: Please explain how experience makes such a choice keeping in mind how different individuals may experience the same even differently? The report of witnesses at an accident is notorious for demonstrating different witnesses experience the same event very differently. > dmb said: > They (truths) still have to agree with experience and function as the best > possible explanation as we move into further experience. Marsha: But the truth often does not always agree with different experiences. (see above) Besides I stated the 'truth is relative', I'm not arguing on some special formulaic definition of a "relativism." I can be a pragmatic person in my daily life, but not consider myself a contemporary pragmatist. Buddhism is considered a pragmatic philosophy, but they still consider conventional truths to be relative. > Marsha replied: > Who is doing the agreeing? How do they do this agreeing? Who judges that > agreement has been reached? > > > dmb says: > Seriously? Wow. Marsha: Sorry with assaulting with such stupid questions. Please just answer. > dmb: > Agreement with experience has nothing to do "who" agrees. Agreement between > an idea and experience simply means that the idea works when it is put into > practice. Marsha: Right. The idea the Nazi's had for exterminating masses of people was experience as a success in practice. > dmb: > Apparently, you're even more confused than I imagined. No wonder you're > always evading the substance of the matter. Marsha: As I told you before I am an flow of ever-changing, interdependent, impermanent inorganic, biological, social and intellectual static patterns of value, so what are your insults to stick to? > dmb: > The rest of your response was even worse and responding to it would be too > cruel even for me. Marsha: Copout... Marsha asks again: I have been persuaded by argument, rational thought and insight that conventional truths, static patterns of value, are relative to biological apparatus, memory and dynamic quality. If you have evidence that RMP no longer believes that truth is relative within the MoQ, please present it. You've presented nothing that persuades me static patterns of value (truth) are not relative. ___ 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
