[MD] [Bulk] Re: Philosophy and Abstraction

[MarshaV]

Adrie,  

Relativism has many different meanings and connotations, that truth is 
relative is one of them.  The MoQ may be stepping away from a cultural 
relativism where morally anything goes, but that is not stepping away 
from epistemological relativism where truth is understood to be relative.  
Within the MoQ truth(sq) is considered relative.  

 
Marsha



On Dec 15, 2010, at 7:53 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:

> 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.


 
___