Sent from my iPad
On Nov 23, 2011, at 2:25 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Arlo said to Marsha: > If anything, you and DMB are having different conversations. He is using the > term [relativism] as it has meaning within the discourse of the historical > philosophical conversation, and you are using the term as it has meaning to > you, ignoring every connotation of the word that doesn't fit into your desire > to link the MOQ with that term and selecting only those that do fit. > > dmb says: > In philosophy, I suppose, the meaning of any term is debatable and > negotiable. But what kills me is that we are talking about whether the MOQ > does or does not qualify as relativism and yet Marsha's case begins by > rejecting the meaning of the word as Pirsig himself uses it. Somehow, she > figures that it's illegitimate for me to use the same meaning that Pirsig > uses. That objection is weird and wrong and just plain silly, isn't it? > > Arlo continued: > .., at the best it ends up meaning whatever anyone wants it to mean. The same > thing is happening here with 'relativism'. You are so absolutely dedicated to > demanding the MOQ is relativism that you aren't aware that within the larger > philosophic conversation this is entirely problematic and advances the MOQ in > no way. Indeed, it creates unnecessary confusion where there need be none. > > > dmb says: > The quotes from Hagen and from Ant's textbook are about the difference > between static patterns and Dynamic Quality. Marsha: I believe Ant is address truth as static patterns and Hagen is addressing conventional truths. > dmb: > They are about the discrepancy between concepts and reality and making sure > that concepts are subordinate to reality, must answer to the primary > empirical reality. And so they are describing concepts as "relative truth" in > order to contrast our ideas with the "absolute truth" of the pre-conceptual, > empirical flux. Marsha: Patterns (relative truths) are relative to other patterns (relative truths). > Dmb: > But Marsha is misreading this language of the Buddhist's two truths as an > alternative to the pragmatic theory of truth, which it isn't. Marsha: I'm misreading nothing: "The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths differentiates between two levels of truth (Sanskrit: satya) in Buddhist discourse: a "relative" or commonsense truth (Pāli: sammuti sacca), and an "ultimate" or absolute, spiritual truth (Pāli: paramattha sacca)." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths) > dmb: > This is easy to see when we notice that the MOQ can easily contain the > static-dynamic split and the pragmatic theory of truth at the same time. They > go quite nicely together, in fact, because each intellectual truth exist in > relation to all the other intellectual patterns and they are all subordinate > to DQ. Marsha: Yes I agree with this, but I would say that intellectual patterns are dependent on other intellectual patterns. > dmb: > It's not just that there are better words to describe the MOQ's view of > truth, although that's true too. Relativism is a term of abuse in philosophy. Marsha: I have the MoQ as epistemologically relative (sq) and ontologically indeterminate (DQ). Truth within the MOQ follows a pragmatic notion of truth so truth is seen as relative in his system. > dmb: > Words like "plural, provisional, perspectival, relational, contextual, > evolutionary and historical" aren't the kind of labels that one is likely to > take as a slanderous insult. Marsha: So in typical fashion he relies on a "walled-in jargonized way of looking at things". You should really read LILA. > dmb: > Relativism is not just a dirty word in general. It's also the word that > unfairly destroyed the reputation of Phaedrus's beloved Sophists. Marsha: That was Plato's trumped up case. > dmb: > It's the word Pirsig applies to that famously defective value-free > metaphysics we call SOM. It's the wrong impression that Richard Rigel has > about the great author's first book. We can practically see that Pirsig is > fighting relativism with everything he's got and yet this is the label Marsha > wants to slap on the MOQ? Marsha: I do not see it that way. He is fighting Plato, the objectivist, who would put the Truth before the good. > dmb: > That's weird and wrong and just plain silly, isn't it? We might as well > insist that the MOQ is a form of objectivism, subjectivism, theism or any > number of other things that it explicitly opposes. Marsha: Stating that 'static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns, has no independent existence' is not suggesting a subject/object orientation. > dmb: > And, I strongly suspect that people with axes to grind are the only ones > taking this nonsense seriously. (Yea. I'm looking at you, Steve.) Marsha: I am still remembering you reifying your "fiercest rivals". And you think you understand the MoQ. Hahahahaha! 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
