[DMB] In philosophy, I suppose, the meaning of any term is debatable and negotiable.
[Arlo] Sure, in fact I could argue that the entire trajectory of discourse is an ongoing negotiation the meaning of words. In MOQ terms, we hold useful meanings 'static' as long as they are valuable, and the invaluable fades away as the dynamic flux encourages new meanings to emerge and spread. Like I said to Marsha, its not so much that I care about someone arguing that a certain word should be redefined, if its necessary by all means make the argument. But if you're adopting a revised version of a word from how it is used and understood in the context you are speaking, you better make sure you pre-empt every thing you say with that, and be prepared to explain why such a redefinition is needed. In the long run, though, it should be about meaning. If I say, I propose redefining 'relativism' to mean 'X' and someone else says 'contextualism' already means 'X', why don't we just use that term, and I respond "NO! We absolutely MUST use the term relativism!", it makes me wonder more about the need to push a word than a meaning. It was the same issue with the "MOQ is a theism" crowd. I mean at the point where you've redefined theism to such an extent so that you can force it onto the MOQ, does it even mean 'theism' anymore? Aren't there better words that already describe the MOQ better? What that boiled down to was "it has to be a theism, because I need it to be to validate my other theistic beliefs". I sense the same thing at play here. [DMB] 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. [Arlo] And this is precisely why I said the other day that the MOQ would be stronger if Pirsig had to engage in the academic discourse of engaging dissent and clarity. And, sadly, every time I say this I get "you want a dogma", and I think "no, I want more clarity, so that in cases like this there is no ambiguity, so I know when to agree and when to disagree". As it is, we have two literary books where the chosen genre and the colloquial discourse has led to frustration and misuse. And, no, I would not read Ant's use of the term "relative" in that quote to mean the MOQ is relativism. But you and I are aware (you more so, probably) of the larger implications that Granger (as you cite) points to with the ideological field of relativism. And, like I said to Marsha, if she is fluent enough in Eastern language and culture to make the argument that 'relativism' in Eastern thinking is free from the maladies of 'relativism' in Western thinking, then that is an argument that shouldn't so vehemently demand that we begin by keeping the word, then redefining it. We start with whatever Eastern meaning there is, seek parallels in Western thought, and adopt or point to better, more similar, more compatible terms. [DMB] That objection is weird and wrong and just plain silly, isn't it? [Arlo] Yes. [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. 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. [Arlo] And not just an insult, be a very particular meaning. But again, don't you think this parallels the demand that MOQ be affixed with the label "theism"? I think, as in that case, that its people stuck in the SOM-relativism, just like people who need a God to give their life meaning, that don't bother to ask how the MOQ rejects, or extends, or argues against what is meant by 'relativism'. Even if we take that twenty-times a day Pirsig quote and say that to 'relativism' Pirsig adds that Quality is absolute. Relativism has no absolute, it denies any absolute can/could exist. THAT is the point. THAT is the difference. Its like saying "atheism denies there is a god", and be told "no-god is the god of atheism". You just keep redefining and redefining and pretty soon you end up statements like "black is white" and words have no meaning except for whatever private dialogue you are having in your head. [DMB] 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? [Arlo] Right, and I see you cited Granger's very comments on this. Just like Steve pointed out, 'relativism' is really just another word for the "S" in SOM (where absolutism is the "O"). The MOQ was supposed to move past that, and its weird to see it being pulled back down into it. [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.) [Arlo] Yeah, I'm about to back out, I said my peace and I don't see anything changing or moving forward. There is most certainly an emotive-hostility aspect to this that is really what you're dealing with, the meaning/intellectual dialogue is going nowhere. 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
