[MD] suspended in language

[MarshaV]

Hi Matt,

You wrote "I'm not about to wade into that shitstorm."  And I'm wading out
of it.  As a relativist, I accept that Ron and Steve are writing what is
true for them.  I will continue to investigate the implications of
perceptual relativism, epistemological relativism and ontological relativism
in relation to the MoQ. 

Thanks for writing.


Marsha 




-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Matt Kundert
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 5:35 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] suspended in language


Wow, I didn't imagine that the discussion of relativism 
could possible get any more out of hand, but...there you 
go.  The only comment I have is way back before the 
other thread was created:

Matt said:
The Platonic-scarecrow known as "Relativism" is 
produced by thinking that relativity equates to 
meaninglessness.  Cutting that cord, by evicting the 
thought the relativity engenders loss of meaning, is the 
only thing pragmatism (or Marsha) needed to do.

Marsha said:
You sound like Ham presenting the Nihilist specter.  And I 
wonder why you need to make a determination that I 
need only cut the cord between relativity and 
meaninglessness?  I do not, nor ever did, see such a cord 
to cut.  Relativism seems such a squeaky wheel that it 
just makes my interest even greater.  I want to 
understand it myself.  That you and Steve have come to 
the conclusion that relativism equates to asshole should 
influence me?  I think not!  It seems to me a simple fact 
that if there are no absolutes, then all is relative.  Within 
Buddhism, reality arises co-dependently. Everything 
then, is relative.

Matt:
The reason why I "need to make a determination" is 
because what you pulled was simply my way of 
presenting your viewpoint as I see it--something, I think 
you would agree, all fallible, relative students of life need 
to do to find that if-only-sliver of cultural overlap we 
share with each other.  I've perceived over the course of 
our relationship that you've never really liked my style of 
presentation, my mode of articulation, my method of 
writing.  That's alright, but that's all I was really doing.

My very general perception of what you are doing is 
based on an inference-series something like this:

1) Protagoras thought that people measured their current 
experience against their past experience.

2) Plato thought that was a bad philosophy.  He painted 
it as an epistemic and ethical sinkhole, as leading to 
global meaninglessness, as the inability for anyone to 
mean anything truly meaningful.

3) Plato, more or less, won the war of words, generating 
a PR machine for his version of what "relativism" means, 
a machine one could, generally speaking, call "most of 
the tradition of philosophy."

4) Seeing through absolutism means seeing that what 
Protagoras was saying does not lead to global 
meaninglessness.

5) By virtue of the fact that you see through absolutism 
and see _meaning_ in relativism, I take it that you've cut 
Plato's inference between Protagoras' position (called 
"relativism") and meaninglessness.

The above is my perception of both the situation and 
your position in my perception.  It is by no means my 
attempt to authentically recapitulate _your_ perception 
of your own position.  I have no real grasp on it, and 
anyways you keep intimating you're not ready to 
articulate it fully, which I respect.

I apologize if I keep giving the impression that I'm trying, 
I don't know, to control you or something.  I'm just like 
you--giving my perspective.  Part of my perspective is, 
certainly, what I think you should do, though clearly I 
don't have much control over what you do do.  If I didn't 
have value judgments like that, if every person did not 
have value judgments like, "The first step, and all you 
really need to do to rehabilitate relativism, is cut the 
inferential-rhetorical cord between relativism and 
meaninglessness," then I'm not sure such a world would 
be the value-laden, moral-judgment ought-okay world 
that Pirsig envisioned.  Pirsig wasn't writing out his 
philosophy to just explain to others his perspective--he 
was suggesting it, commending it to others.  That's all I'm 
doing, and that's all you're doing, too--if you weren't, you 
wouldn't be a very good promoter of Pirsig or relativism.

Other than that, I think pretty much everyone in the "In 
defence of the 'relative'" thread is talking past each other 
(though your "figure of speech" response at the beginning, 
Marsha, was dead-on--I wish you'd remember that when 
I'm writing).  I personally don't think anyone is 
representing their positions very well, an experience I'm 
well acquainted with already, so I'm not about to wade 
into that shitstorm.

And good god, did I never say that "relativism equates to 
asshole"!  Hah!  That's a good one.  What Steve meant 
was not that (as far as I could tell), and my tangential post 
from long ago about assholes didn't mean that either.  I'm 
not just saying that to be eristically contrary, by countering 
your assertion to heal some reputation that I wouldn't call 
you an asshole.  I have no philosophical qualms about 
calling you an asshole, but if I did, it wouldn't be because 
of a philosophical position you took--it would be because 
you were acting like an asshole.  That's one thing, I take it, 
my post was about.  Not understanding that is just one 
more in a long line of misunderstandings.

Matt
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Windows 7: Unclutter your desktop.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9690331&ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US
:WWL_WIN_evergreen:112009
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/