Mark, Shame? What is shame but a social level manipulative maneuver... I'm not impressed.
Marsha On Nov 20, 2011, at 2:00 AM, 118 wrote: > Marsha, > You really are incorrigible. Have you no shame? > Mark > > On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 3:23 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Nov 19, 2011, at 5:12 PM, david buchanan wrote: >> >>> >>> Marsha said to dmb, >>> >>> Would you please present your definition of relativism? >>> >>> >>> dmb says: >>> You're changing the subject and asking me to give an answer that's already >>> been given several times. It's in the archives, I'm sure. You could find it >>> by searching the quotes, which I've already responded to several times. >>> >>> Here's the idea in a nutshell. Relativism is the view that truth is >>> relative to the culture or the individual, that there is no way to say that >>> one truth is better than another. >> >> Marsha: >> But this has been refuted. Of course an individual, a group, a community >> can choose ways to test truth. The MoQ, for instance, uses a evolutionary, >> hierarchical structure by which to judge truth. >> >> >>> dmb: >>> This is the kind of relativism we saw in Franz Boas. It is a result of >>> scientific objectivity, which says that morals and values are just >>> arbitrary social constructions. The MOQ says that some truths are better >>> than others, that these harmonious reasonings are formed on the basis of >>> quality and they can be judged on the basis of coherence, logical >>> consistency and agreement with experience. >> >> >> Marsha: >> You are conflating cultural relativism with an epistemological relativism. >> I do not need to check the archives because you have never presented the >> definition of 'relativism' that you use. This allows you to over and over >> again misrepresent the term and associate it with solipsism. >> >> >>> dmb: >>> Pirsig's intellectual autobiography begins when he's just a teenager, when >>> he's tortured over the endless proliferation of hypotheses. Science was >>> supposed to get you closer to the truth, he naively thought. But he >>> discovered that science was going in the opposite direction. There were an >>> infinite number of explanations for any given data set, so how do you know >>> which one is right? >> >> Marsha: >> Poincare making a choice based on insight does not obliterate all the other >> possibilities, and it does not guarantee the Best choice was made. >> >> >>> dmb: >>> That's the context in which Poincare's insights came as such a relief. He >>> could see that Quality is what takes the arbitrariness and capriciousness >>> out of it. >> >> Marsha: >> I don't get this statement. There is Quality(Dynamic/static) in every >> event. The less static the event, or process the more Dynamic >> possibilities are possible. >> >> >>> Dmb: >>> "Poincaré's contemporaries .. presumed that "preselected facts" meant that >>> truth is "whatever you like" and called his ideas conventionalism. ..What >>> he neglected to say was that the selection of facts before you "observe" >>> them is "whatever you like" only in a dualistic, subject-object >>> metaphysical system! When Quality enters the picture as a third >>> metaphysical entity, the preselection of facts is no longer arbitrary. The >>> preselection of facts is not based on subjective, capricious "whatever you >>> like" but on Quality, which is reality itself. ...we know from Phædrus' >>> metaphysics that the harmony Poincaré talked about is not subjective. It is >>> the source of subjects and objects and exists in an anterior relationship >>> to them. It is not capricious, it is the force that opposes capriciousness; >>> the ordering principle of all scientific and mathematical thought which >>> destroys capriciousness, and without which no scientific thought can >>> proceed." >> >> RMP has stated: >> >> "The reason there is a difference between individual evaluations of quality >> is that although Dynamic Quality is a constant, these static patterns are >> different for everyone because each person has a different static pattern of >> life history. Both the Dynamic Quality and the static patterns influence his >> final judgment. That is why there is some uniformity among individual value >> judgments but not complete uniformity." >> (RMP, SODV) >> >> Is this the 'subjective" you are talking about? Different evaluations >> dependent on "static pattern of life history"? Relativism does not >> necessarily point to a subject/object point-of-view. Isn't James's >> pragmatic truth relative to an individual or group's interest. Satisfaction >> and success determined on 'how it works'. What you are protecting is >> criticism against James. Criticism like the post I recently sent regarding >> RMP's criticism of James pragmatism. The static quality (truth) is >> relative. In the MoQ, though, it can be evaluated on the basis of its >> evolutionary level. As Anthony writes: >> “Intellectual values include truth, justice, freedom, democracy and, trial >> by jury. 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." >> >> >>> We see the same idea in Lila, at the end of chapter 29, wherein Pirsig says >>> that Quality is at the "cutting edge of scientific progress itself". All >>> our concepts (analogues, ghosts, static patterns) were formed on the basis >>> of Quality. People and ideas and cultures grow and change in response to >>> Quality or, to put it another way, evolution is guided the track of Quality >>> so that arbitrary and capricious truths don't long survive. >> >> Marsha: >> The possibilities at the "cutting edge of scientific progress" are relative >> to the history of the ghosts, analogues or static patterns and the Dynamics >> in the present. >> >> >> For the sake of "taking words seriously' please present an exact definition >> of 'relativism' as you are using it. ___ 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
