Hi dmb, On Nov 20, 2011, at 5:16 PM, david buchanan wrote:
> > Marsha: >> For the sake of "taking words seriously' please present an exact definition >> of 'relativism' as you are using it. >> >> >> dmb answered 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: >> By the way, dmb, your definition is begging the question, as it assumes the >> answer to the question being posed: that there is no way to say that one >> truth is better than another. > > > > dmb says: > Huh? If the question asks for my definition how can my definition beg the > question? And how do you figure that an explicitly stated position could > count as an assumption? Your objections are pure nonsense. As usual. > > I gave you the definition you asked for and I showed you exactly how and > where Pirsig uses the word in a way that fits that definition. Since the > issue is whether or not Pirsig is a relativist, what could be more relevant > and appropriate? If that's not good enough for you, then you're just not a > reasonable person. Maybe you should ask somebody else. Five minutes with you > is way more than plenty. Marsha: When your premise is contained in the primary definition, that is 'begging the question'. Would you cite the source of your definition? 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
