[MD] suspended in language

[MarshaV]

Hello Steve,,, 

Marsha before:
> Panrelationalism?  No, you do not get to chose the word I use.  I do not
> think I used the phrase "everything is related" so I do not know how you
can
> expect me to agree to anything based on that phrase.

Steve:
You act like I'm trying to force something down your throat.

About 4 hours ago I asked, "What sort of relativism are you talking
about if not ethical relativism when you call yourself a relativist?"

You responded, "As far as I can remember, I've always thought,
informally at least, that
everything was relative to everything. That is why I call myself a
relativist." Perhaps you can now see why I might expect you to agree
based on that phrase?

Marsha:
I mentioned 'perceptual relativism', 'epistemological relativism', and
'ontological relativism'.  I think that you are trying to force something
down my throat and that you are using a deceptive word selection in the
process.



Marsha before:
> RMP states Quality is morality, in other words, there is nothing that is
not
> moral. It's a different type of morality that has gone beyond the
> traditional/religious variety.


Steve:
Agreed. My point has been that by self-applying the label
"relativist," you are claiming to be on the losing side of a battle
fought on the grounds of the traditional/reigious view of morality.

Marsha:
That is your interpretation and relative to your point-of-view.


Steve:
I've been suggesting that I think a better tactic would be to simply
deny those grounds. You do deny them, but then you take on alabel that
implies that you are standing on them anyway. In other words, when you
say you are a relativist, people will assume that you buy into the
tradition understanding of what morality is and are taking a position
that you don't actually take.

Marsha:
A 'better tactic' seems to be one supporting your point-of-view.  


Steve:
It's somewhat like saying, "I am a dog
lover. When I say that, what I really mean is that I love those cute
little critters with the whiskers that purr and meow all the time,"
and then being frustrated when others misunderstand you. "I just love
dogs, why is that so hard to understand?"

Marsha:
What is this fuzziness suppose to represent?  



Steve:
All I'm saying is that people would understand you better if you just
said "cat" or "felines" or "those cute little critters with the
whiskers that purr and meow all the time" or lots of other things. But
if you insist on saying "dog," you will continue to be misunderstood.
If you don't like "panrelationslist," fine. But you don't bark like a
relativist.

Marsha:
This is more saying nothing. Your opinion of my bark is of no relevance to
me.  By what evidence should I consider you an authority?  


Marsha