[MD] in defence of the "relative"

[X Acto]

The dictionary, in it's most rudimentry description of the term states that relativity is:

"A state of dependence in which the existence or significance of one entity is solely dependent on that of another."

The term "Relativist" has drawn alot of controversy and it has been argued that taking
up this term has more to do with the baggage it carries than the meaning it supplies.
Often the two co-mingle insofar that the baggage has become the meaning. 
To try to reclaim the meaning over the baggage of misconception is a huge undertaking
and as illustrated here on the discuss it becomes combersome to a point where it destroys
that aim.
The idea of relativity as it pertains to the above description is certainly a modern scientific
premise and has been explored by the eastern philosophies well before western scientific
conclusions yet They both compliment each other in explaination.

But the need to label ones self, to claim a steadfast position seems to be another
topic altogether. It speaks more to a psychological need than about a prefered
theory of explaination one subscribes to.
I would not label myself a "Pragmatist" yet I subscribe to it's concepts.
I simply do not feel the need to label myself anything in particular for the self
that is named tends to be confined and isolated. Simply put, to label ones self a relativist
sort of flies in the face of the endeavor of reclaiming the meaning of the term.

So it seems subscribing to the philosphical stance of relativity
is different than calling ones self a "relativist" . By labeling ones self
it implies a limited point of view and I feel its that implication that
draws the most criticism.

for what it's worth