[MD] Philosophy and Abstraction

[ADRIE KINTZIGER]

The basic misconception, i believe , is to think that truth can reside
outside reality.
All truth's are derivations, spinn-off's, of reality itself.
therefore they are relative of value towards reality.

relativism is a totally different concept, and completely in conflict with a
model like the moq, because the moq is stepping away from relativism and
idealism.

But imho.
Adrie

2010/12/15 MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>

> dmb,
>
> Within the MoQ, truth(sq) is considered relative, and within Buddhism
> conditioned(conventional) truth is considered relative, and since static
> quality and  the conditioned in Buddhist philosophy are synonymous, instead
> of defending James and Pirsig against the accusation of relativism, one
> should defend relativism against SOM attack of immorality.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
> On Dec 15, 2010, at 4:56 AM, MarshaV wrote:
>
> >
> > dmb,
> >
> > Do you mean "relativism" as in the seven-word dictionary definition?
> >
> >     –noun Philosophy .
> >      any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying
> with
> >      individuals and their environments.
> >
> > Or do you mean "relativism" defined relative to some other criteria?
> >
> >
> > Marsha
> >
> >
> > On Dec 14, 2010, at 5:02 PM, david buchanan wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> dmb says:
> >>
> >> I don't think that's fair. I only described Sellars and Rorty using the
> terms they use for themselves and those labels don't just "smell" like
> scientific materialism, they declare it quite openly. (Verbal behaviorism,
> non-reductive physicalism, eliminative materialism are terms they use.
> Again, these are not my cups of tea and I think that's a very different
> perspective but it's not slanderous to point this out.) Platonism, on the
> other hand, is explicitly attacked in all kinds of ways by Pirsig. He even
> goes after Plato personally, by name.
> >>
> >> Do you really think of these differences as "elusive smells"? It's not a
> black and white sort of thing, but its like the difference between musical
> genres. There are small differences like the one between Bakersfield country
> and Nashville country. Then there are big differences, like the one between
> Mozart and The Clash or jazz and polka. Different doesn't mean worse,
> although there is definitely some bad music and the various genres suit
> various temperaments and even differing demographic profiles. Philosophies
> are like that too. In this case we have one pragmatist who says the
> fundamental nature of reality is outside of language and another who says
> it's language all the way down. See, I don't quote Rorty's critic's to use
> "relativism" as mere slander. And it doesn't even matter if it's exactly
> true or not. That's the sense that I get from reading his texts and from
> reading about his text and relativism does not suit my tastes in philosophy.
> I think that relativism is a cha
> >> rge against which Pirsig and James have to be defended. And so
> temperament plays a role in our arguments. I can agree with many points, as
> in the case of Sellars, but it still makes me bristle. And I'm pretty sure
> that behaviorism and physicalism are the kinds of things Pirsig had in mind
> in his critique of scientific objectivity. These are all a part of putting
> the differences on display, both broadly and in specific terms.
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>



-- 
parser