[MD] Marsha's Relativism

[Ian Glendinning]

Steve, John, Marsha, Dave ...

Steve said ... "This is an important issue for pragmatists to sort out
because James and Dewey often seemed to be conflating justification
with truth and why many modern philosophers of a pragmatic bent refuse
to self-identify as pragmatists."

Steve said "justification".
John said "negotiation"
I say yes - (read Mary Parker-Follett).

As a self-identified pragmatist this is where I see the "truth value"
of any statement, particularly as the basis of any decision to act
(including the act of communicating). If we continue to make some hard
objective distinction between "rational" maths and science type
"facts" and values in the more "relativist" and subjective contexts -
we are falling for the SOMist trap at step one. This is just not an
interesting distinction at a conceptual intellectual level ... what
matters is the quality of active living decisions. Truth-value,
neither truth nor value. A "useful" conflation, no ? No accident or
error.

As Marsha says "we are all living in some type of slavery, a slavery
to patterns"
I agree - we are slaves to the SOMist pattern, even MOQish
"intellectuals" it would seem ?

Regards
Ian

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 9:05 AM, MarshaV<valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
> I think we are all living in some type of slavery, a slavery to patterns,
> for instance, and thought maybe you meant something like 'legally owned',
> but never mind.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Steve Peterson
> Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 9:31 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Marsha's Relativism
>
>
> On Aug 22, 2009, at 9:49 AM, MarshaV wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> Do you have one universal definition of 'slavery'?
>>
>>
>> Marsha
>>
>>
>
> Hi Marsha,
>
> I could never give a universal definition of "slavery" or any word. I
> think I could give a definition that we both could agree upon, but I
> don't think it would be necessary to do that because I think we both
> already know what slavery is. An ahistorical, transcultural, universal
> definition of slavery would make no sense because slavery is a
> historical cultural phenomenon. I can't imagine that "slavery" has any
> existence outside language or that slavery exists outside of culture.
> Can you? Likewise, "truth" as I understand it has no existence outside
> of culture-dependent language either. I don't see it as referring to
> some Platonic Form.
>
> If we both share an understanding of how "slavery, "immoral," and
> "true" function in language, then perhaps we can agree that it is true
> that slavery is immoral. If you need some qualifier like "all things
> being equal," then go ahead and add it. But unless you really are a
> thorough-going relativist, I think there ought to be some way for you
> to use "slavery, "immoral," and "true" in a sentence that you believe.
>
> Best,
> Steve
>
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>