Hi Matt, >From where i sit now, I'm back to "It’s worth noting that the MOQ follows a >pragmatic notion of truth so truth is seen as relative in his system while >Quality is seen as absolute. In consequence, the truth is defined as the >highest quality intellectual explanation at a given time." That's relative, >not random. I'll give your papers a try. But I must say something about >style. A while back I read a half-dozen books on relativism. The majority >were well written and helpful. Margolis was the only author whose style >seemed affected; I thought maybe he wrote with his head up is butt.
Marsha On Dec 21, 2010, at 6:59 PM, Matt Kundert wrote: > > Not really. I think it has something to do with assimilating > "knowing-that" to "verbal abstractions" and than not conceiving of > them as every bit of an outgrowth of DQ-direct-experience as an > arm or sunset. > >> Hi Matt, >> >> Can you tell me what dmb's objection is? >> >> Marsha >> >> On Dec 21, 2010, at 9:12 AM, Matt Kundert wrote: >> >>> >>> Absolutely. In Brandom's systematic expansion of the core ideas of >>> Sellars and Rorty, propositional knowing-that is built out of >>> pragmatic know-how. >>> >>> Matt >>> >>>> Hi Matt, >>>> >>>> It sounds to me like Rorty is saying it is verbal designation all the >>>> all the way down, but isn't that be verbal designation built on >>>> regularity and explanatory usefulness, as in pragmatically? >>>> >>>> >>>> Marsha > ___ 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
