The basic misconception, i believe , is to think that truth can reside outside reality. All truth's are derivations, spinn-off's, of reality itself. therefore they are relative of value towards reality.
relativism is a totally different concept, and completely in conflict with a model like the moq, because the moq is stepping away from relativism and idealism. But imho. Adrie 2010/12/15 MarshaV <[email protected]> > dmb, > > Within the MoQ, truth(sq) is considered relative, and within Buddhism > conditioned(conventional) truth is considered relative, and since static > quality and the conditioned in Buddhist philosophy are synonymous, instead > of defending James and Pirsig against the accusation of relativism, one > should defend relativism against SOM attack of immorality. > > > Marsha > > > > On Dec 15, 2010, at 4:56 AM, MarshaV wrote: > > > > > dmb, > > > > Do you mean "relativism" as in the seven-word dictionary definition? > > > > –noun Philosophy . > > any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying > with > > individuals and their environments. > > > > Or do you mean "relativism" defined relative to some other criteria? > > > > > > Marsha > > > > > > On Dec 14, 2010, at 5:02 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > > >> > >> dmb says: > >> > >> I don't think that's fair. I only described Sellars and Rorty using the > terms they use for themselves and those labels don't just "smell" like > scientific materialism, they declare it quite openly. (Verbal behaviorism, > non-reductive physicalism, eliminative materialism are terms they use. > Again, these are not my cups of tea and I think that's a very different > perspective but it's not slanderous to point this out.) Platonism, on the > other hand, is explicitly attacked in all kinds of ways by Pirsig. He even > goes after Plato personally, by name. > >> > >> Do you really think of these differences as "elusive smells"? It's not a > black and white sort of thing, but its like the difference between musical > genres. There are small differences like the one between Bakersfield country > and Nashville country. Then there are big differences, like the one between > Mozart and The Clash or jazz and polka. Different doesn't mean worse, > although there is definitely some bad music and the various genres suit > various temperaments and even differing demographic profiles. Philosophies > are like that too. In this case we have one pragmatist who says the > fundamental nature of reality is outside of language and another who says > it's language all the way down. See, I don't quote Rorty's critic's to use > "relativism" as mere slander. And it doesn't even matter if it's exactly > true or not. That's the sense that I get from reading his texts and from > reading about his text and relativism does not suit my tastes in philosophy. > I think that relativism is a cha > >> rge against which Pirsig and James have to be defended. And so > temperament plays a role in our arguments. I can agree with many points, as > in the case of Sellars, but it still makes me bristle. And I'm pretty sure > that behaviorism and physicalism are the kinds of things Pirsig had in mind > in his critique of scientific objectivity. These are all a part of putting > the differences on display, both broadly and in specific terms. > > > > ___ > > > 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 > -- parser 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
