[MD] in defence of the "relative"

[MarshaV]

Hi John,

Relativism seems a process to me.  In your book what is the difference
between process and method?


Marsha 



-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of John Carl
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:01 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] in defence of the "relative"

Ummm. Not sure what application the future needs, but I just wanted to
clarify that the distinction I made between relativism as an absolute and
relativism as a method wasn't actually MY distinction, it was Ron's.  And
He'd probably point out it wasn't HIS it came from Protagoras but I'm pretty
sure Protogoras stole it from somebody else.

The theft continues ever



On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:17 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

>
> John,
>
> I meant that you were inferring more in the quotes supporting relativism
> than were supplied, possibly to discredit the argument, not the normal
> inferring necessary for common communication.
>
> Sure, if you want to present some distinctions between method and
> metaphysics, but fist make the presentation of a general sort.  Save the
> application to relativism for some time in the future.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of John Carl
> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 12:26 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] in defence of the "relative"
>
> We all infer more than is stated constantly.  No choice in that.  Don't
you
> think the distinction between relativism as a method and relativism as a
> metaphysics is helpful?
>
> John the scary machinist
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:20 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > John,
> >
> > Your post to Ham spoke of 'total relativism' which sounds typical of
> > Plato's
> > scarey machinations. And I haven't heard anybody suggesting that
> relativism
> > should be a new temple.  You are inferring more than was stated.
> >
> >
> > Marsha
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> > [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of John Carl
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 12:03 PM
> > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > Subject: Re: [MD] in defence of the "relative"
> >
> > Good stuff to discuss Marsha,
> >
> > "Relativism sees itself, therefore, as breaking a temple or two.
Nothing
> > > too grand, perhaps, but a way of letting some fresh air into those
> closed
> > > buildings of the mind.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Nothing too grand" as a proper metaphysical ground in and of itself,
but
> a
> > useful method (as Ron posits) for tearing down other's temples.
> >
> > As a fellow iconoclastic anarchist, I applaud.  But once you set
> Relativism
> > up as a temple itself, its ripe for knocking down.  As I demonstrate in
> my
> > answer to Ham this morning.
> >
> > So would you be happy if I offered you a distinction between methodical
> and
> > metaphysical relativism?
> >
> > Let the play continue!
> >
> > John the "I'm happy if you're happy"