[MD] in defence of the "relative"

[MarshaV]

Hi Matt,

Sorry, starting a paragraph with 'It' was poor style.

The definition of relativity that Ron presented as the kernel of the
definition of relativism, "A state of dependence in which the existence or
significance of one entity is solely dependent on that of another."
Quality/experience/existence/reality is the interaction between unpatterned
experience and patterned experience. That most obviously is relativism, from
perceptual relativism to epistemological relativism to ontological
relativism to ontological indeterminism: There is no answer, there never
was, nor ever will be an answer.  ALERT ALERT ALERT  Knowing should be
accompanied by a certain amount of humility!!!     

What, Matt, you label as "a decent definition of knowledge" would be decent
dependent on your frame-of-reference: relative; "justified true belief" is
most obviously relative to any number of possible justifications. Maybe it
is because of relativism that adopting a practical approach to the possible
tensions and conflicts between the individual and the collective is
necessary. I may lean more towards the concerns of the individual, someone
else may lean more towards the concerns of the collective, but all should
carry in their hearts, imho, humility for the fragility of even our shared,
conventional knowledge.  

What do you think Matt?  Is there a good reason why I should not call myself
a 'relativist'?  


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 4:21 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] in defence of the "relative"


Marsha,

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

Matt:
I take it "it" here refers to "relativism," as in "relativism 
says existence is indeterminate..."?

That being the case, I take pragmatism to be saying the 
same thing.  That is because I construe "Quality is 
undefinable" as "mu": unask the question, i.e. this isn't a 
good topic to ask questions about.  Existence qua existence, 
Aristotle's Platonic-like quest for what being/existence was 
as it relates only to itself, isn't profitable because, as you 
say, things are interdependent--so when you construe 
something as _independent_, dependent only on itself, you 
come up with a null class, you come up with things that 
appear "indeterminate, like indivisible, undefinable and 
unknowable."  Same thing happened to Kant in the Critique 
of Pure Reason: he found that if you treated something as it 
was in itself, it became unknowable.  Hence his dualism 
between noumena (the unknowable thing-in-itself) and 
phenomena (knowable, relatable stuff).  That's how I 
unpack "the same thing" that you said.  You might differ.

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

Matt:
In my words, it says that knowledge is interdependent, 
by which a decent definition of knowledge might be 
"justified true belief."  "Belief" stands in for the fact that 
a _person_ is required for knowledge--somebody must 
think something.  "Justified" stands in for the fact that 
the only route we've in practice discovered to yield things 
that are true is by sharing our thoughts with our 
community, and then by a process of trial-and-error 
called "justification," built up good cause for believing 
such-and-such to be true.  "True" stands in for the fact 
that you cannot reduce "truth" to "justification," even 
though justification is the only route we know of to truth.

Matt

> From: valkyr at att.net
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:33:40 -0500
> Subject: Re: [MD] in defence of the "relative"
> 
> 
> 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?
> 

> -----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
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/
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/