[MD] suspended in language

[Steven Peterson]

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 3:52 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
> I thought I made it clear that I had just begun to investigate the different
> types of relativism: 'perceptual relativism', 'epistemological relativism',
> 'ontological relativism' and 'ontological indeterminism'.  What would I have
> to discuss at this point?  Only when I have a better understanding of these
> terms would it advantageous to consider the alternatives.

No, you didn't make that clear at all. In fact, you told me that I am
the one who has a naive understanding of relativism, so I naturally
assumed that you at least thought that you knew what you meant when
you called yourself a relativist. I guess I was wrong.



> It is not that everyone's perspective is irrelevant.  Neither yours nor
> Matt's perspective are, in general, irrelevant.  But to present a case built
> on the popularity (in your opinion) of a word is just silly in my
> estimation. Maybe the convincing is a game to you.  When you equate calling
> oneself an relativist with calling oneself an asshole, I suspect you do not
> care about integrity in your discussions, and I find that very discouraging.


My argument had nothing to do with popularity. My argument is what a
word means is equivalent to how a word is used and that the word
"relativism" is not generally used in the way that you would like to
use it. You are free to use words however you want, but if you want to
talk about our shared understanding of our epistemic situation, I
think the word "panrelationalism" or something else would convey your
meaning better than the word "relativism." My point is analogous to
saying that if you want to talk about those cute furry critters with
whiskers that meow all the time, the word "cat" will convey your
meaning better than the word "dog." But the issue is only important if
you care whether anyone else understands what you mean. So if being in
control of your life means that you want to call cats dogs, you have
that right. You are in control.


> I am here to develop a deeper understanding of the MoQ.  I offered two RMP
> quotes where I think he points being open to types of relativism other than
> ethical relativism.  I would like to investigate the possibility.  And I
> will not put your opinion before that investigation.  If it turns out to be
> a blind alley, you may, with my blessings, say  "I told you so..."

I have in interest in saying that. I just thought we might have an
interesting conversation, but you are so hostile towards me (for
reasons that I don't understand) that my attempt was a waste of time.