Marsha, Do you think I am trying to impress you? Stop projecting your static notion of reality. Breathe out.
Mark On Nov 20, 2011, at 1:50 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 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
