dmb, What Andre thinks is no more supporting evidence than what you think.
Marsha On Nov 23, 2011, at 10:05 AM, david buchanan wrote: > > 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
