[MD] in defence of the "relative"

[MarshaV]

Matt,

It says existence is indeterminate, like indivisible, undefinable and
unknowable, and the knowledge (patterns) is interdependent, as in relative. 

Now why don't you tell me what pragmatism says about knowledge and
existence?


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: Saturday, November 14, 2009 12:44 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] in defence of the "relative"



Hi Marsha,

Marsha said:
Determining the difference between 'your pragmatism' and 
'my relativism' will tell us what?  I prefer the word 'relativism', 
and happen to think that relativism AND pragmatism 
complement each other and the complement the MoQ.

Matt:
It will tell us how much of that slight cultural overlap we may 
or may not have.  It will also tell us if there is a point in 
saying "relativism and pragmatism complement each other": 
what we don't know, at this point, is whether or not the two 
are identical.  If they were, then there wouldn't be much 
point in saying they complement each other--unless you see 
a point in saying that you complement yourself.  And if you 
do: fair enough.  One thing I do know, because I've read the 
accusers, is that pragmatism in the Church is often equated 
to relativism, one strain of the larger evil (so that particular 
psalm goes).  So knowing the difference between your 
philosophy and mine would tell us how, exactly, we 
complement Pirsig differently.  What's different about 
relativism and pragmatism so that they would both be not 
the same and also positive influences in Pirsig?  We both 
have our suspicions (you say complementary, I say identical), 
but until the future moment you've asked for, we won't 
really be sure.

Marsha said:
I'm not sure how my viewpoint can be of interest to you, 
but here it is:  The Universe is uncaused, like a net of 
jewels in which each is a reflection of all the others in a 
fantastic, interrelated harmony without end. Lovely isn't 
it? So now Matt, what do you know, how do you know it, 
and what does it say about existence?

Matt:
I know that I think your viewpoint is quite lovely, I know 
it because I just thought it, and it says very little about 
existence qua existence as far as I can tell, but it might 
say any number of other things if one construes the 
phrase "what does it say about existence?" differently 
than I just did.

I also know that you think your viewpoint is lovely, I 
know it because I just read you write it, and it says very 
little about existence qua existence, unless one 
construes "what does it say about existence?" differently 
than I just did.

In addition, I know that we both think your viewpoint is 
lovely, I know it because of the rules of logic, and it says 
very little about existence qua existence, but then again, 
I don't think existence qua existence is a good topic, and 
while the above may tell us little by themselves, it is the 
conjunction between those jewels and others that 
anything is known.

Matt
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Windows 7: I wanted simpler, now it's simpler. I'm a rock star.
http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/windows-7/default.aspx?h=myidea?ocid=PID247
27::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_myidea: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/