[MD] [Bulk] Re: Rorty's Relativism

[MarshaV]

Marsha:  
I think your attempts at keeping your attack on relativism confused with
evidence concerning a very extreme form of ethical relativism shouldn't be
taken seriously either.  I admit that I am against the extreme form of
ethical relativism your rejecting too, but a relativism based on
Quality(Dynamic & static) seems quite correct.  And lets see you don't
reject all empiricism just because you reject classical empiricism. Your
rules for what you accept and reject are relative to your own beliefs I
image?      



-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of david buchanan
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 1:25 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] [Bulk] Re: Rorty's Relativism


Marsha said to dmb:
Within the MoQ truth (conventional) would be _relative_ to the particular
quality event where Dynamic Quality and static (inorganic, biological,
social & intellectual) quality intersect.  That is relativism.

dmb says:
Yea, right. It's just like my cousin George and me. Because we're relatives,
we're relativists. And since math is related to physics, numbers and natural
laws represent relativism too. If you can relate to what I'm saying, then
you're a relativist.
Just in case you're not sure, yes, I'm being sarcastic. I think your
attempts to explain away the evidence are very hard to take seriously and if
you're going to post this kind of nonsense I'm really not interested in any
further discussion. Life is too short. Sorry.