[MD] suspended in language

[MarshaV]

Steve,

I _hold_ no hostility towards you.  

You seem to think the use of the word 'relativism' for rhetorical reasons
should be dropped. I am not concerned so much with its rhetorical use, but
with the implications of an epistemological relativism, ontological
relativism and by extension ontological indeterminism. Most Indian
religions, the Sophists, Bernard Crick, Paul Feyerabend, Thomas Kuhn, George
Lakoff & Mark Johnson, Robert Nozick, Joseph Margolis, Richard Rorty, Isaiah
Berlin and Ugo Zilioli, to name a few, are advocates of relativism. It seems
to me relativism is a word still full of life and that puts me in good
company.  

I offered two quotes (see below) that seem to indicate that the MoQ is
relativistic.  In the first, RMP rejects 'ethical relativism' exclusively,
but not any other type.  I'm sure RMP understood Protagoras' cognative
relativism because it is clearly explored in the Plato dialogues.  The
second quote points to a relativity within the MoQ based on history (memory)
and the dynamic moment.  

-------------  

"Then Phædrus feels a tugging to read the passage again, and he does so and
then -- what's this?! -- ``That which we translate `virtue ' but is in Greek
`excellence.''' 
Lightning hits! 
Quality! Virtue! Dharma! That is what the Sophists were teaching! Not
ethical relativism. Not pristine '`virtue.'' But areté. Excellence. Dharma!
Before the Church of Reason. Before substance. Before form. Before mind and
matter. Before dialectic itself. Quality had been absolute. Those first
teachers of the Western world were teaching Quality, and the medium they had
chosen was that of rhetoric. He has been doing it right all along."
   (RMP,ZMM,Chapter 29)

 
"The reason there is a difference between individual evaluations of quality
is that although Dynamic Quality is a constant, these static patterns are
different for everyone because each person has a different static pattern of
life history. Both the Dynamic Quality and the static patterns influence his
final judgment. That is why there is some uniformity among individual value
judgments but not complete uniformity."    
   (RMP, SODV)



Marsha






-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Steven Peterson
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:56 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] suspended in language

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 3:52 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
> I thought I made it clear that I had just begun to investigate the
different
> types of relativism: 'perceptual relativism', 'epistemological
relativism',
> 'ontological relativism' and 'ontological indeterminism'.  What would I
have
> to discuss at this point?  Only when I have a better understanding of
these
> terms would it advantageous to consider the alternatives.

No, you didn't make that clear at all. In fact, you told me that I am
the one who has a naive understanding of relativism, so I naturally
assumed that you at least thought that you knew what you meant when
you called yourself a relativist. I guess I was wrong.



> It is not that everyone's perspective is irrelevant.  Neither yours nor
> Matt's perspective are, in general, irrelevant.  But to present a case
built
> on the popularity (in your opinion) of a word is just silly in my
> estimation. Maybe the convincing is a game to you.  When you equate
calling
> oneself an relativist with calling oneself an asshole, I suspect you do
not
> care about integrity in your discussions, and I find that very
discouraging.


My argument had nothing to do with popularity. My argument is what a
word means is equivalent to how a word is used and that the word
"relativism" is not generally used in the way that you would like to
use it. You are free to use words however you want, but if you want to
talk about our shared understanding of our epistemic situation, I
think the word "panrelationalism" or something else would convey your
meaning better than the word "relativism." My point is analogous to
saying that if you want to talk about those cute furry critters with
whiskers that meow all the time, the word "cat" will convey your
meaning better than the word "dog." But the issue is only important if
you care whether anyone else understands what you mean. So if being in
control of your life means that you want to call cats dogs, you have
that right. You are in control.


> I am here to develop a deeper understanding of the MoQ.  I offered two RMP
> quotes where I think he points being open to types of relativism other
than
> ethical relativism.  I would like to investigate the possibility.  And I
> will not put your opinion before that investigation.  If it turns out to
be
> a blind alley, you may, with my blessings, say  "I told you so..."

I have in interest in saying that. I just thought we might have an
interesting conversation, but you are so hostile towards me (for
reasons that I don't understand) that my attempt was a waste of time.
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/