>From October of 2010 Andre said: Marsha, of late, has used the above quote to defend her notion of truth as relative, and, more importantlythat truth, in the MOQ, is treated as a relative term. Firstly she states that 'My primary mission is NOT to support 'contemporary pragmatism'. (my emphasis).However, Anthony's quote most definately states that the 'MOQ follows a pragmatic notion of truth...'. This immediately dismisses the import of the use of this quote. Marsha says: 'Your(or for that matter the MOQ) approach is your (or the MOQ) approach. Mine is different. Thus Marsha is not interested in the MOQ approach to truth claims. Further, she also (conveniently?) fails to acknowledge a reference to a footnote contained in the samequote which occurs at the end of the '...Quality is seen as absolute' sentence. This footnote says: 'Thepragmatic notion of truth is examined further in Section 2.7'. As stated above, Marsha is not in support of pragmatism, let alone a 'pragmatic notion of truth'. So how she can use a quote, which she rejects herself, to validate her own stance on the relative nature oftruth is beyond me.
> From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:00:56 -0700 > Subject: Re: [MD] The Relativist's journey > > > > Marsha said: > Since you want an actual question, how do you deal with this quote, about > truth being relative, from the MoQ textbook? > > > dmb says: > > The question is not about whether or not I can deal with the quote, but HOW > MANY TIMES have I already done so. Here's one of those times. This one was > more than a year ago ... > > > On Sep 21, 2010, at 3:01 PM, david buchanan wrote to Marsha: > > ... You are confusing relativism with the >>> provisional nature of truth. > The pragmatic theory of truth rejects the >>> notion of an absolute truth or > an objective truth but ideas are true or not >>> depending on whether or not > they function in experience. There is a >>> practical and empirical test of > truth in the MOQ. Anthony probably should >>> have used the word > "provisional" in that sentence. That word really is a >>> better fit with the > description of truth in his next sentence, as the best >>> explanation "at a > given time". >>> >>> Charges of relativism got James into hot water but > Pirsig says his MOQ can >>> adopt pragmatism and radical empiricism without > falling into that trap. >>> It's a bad place to be, according to almost any > philosopher. In ZAMM we see >>> how he takes sides with the Sophists, who he > says were slandered as >>> relativists. Pirsig is consistent about this > concern with false charges of >>> relativism against his main heroes and > allies. >>> And y et > here you are saying the MOQ is just that. >>> >>> Sorry, but the evidence > is plainly against you. If you want to be a >>> relativist, that's one thing. > But don't trash Pirsig's work. > > > > > 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
