[MD] Philosophy and Abstraction

[MarshaV]

Hi Matt,

I am sorry for intruding, but I get sick of that red-herring tossed 
about.  Maybe the measurement problem within quantum 
mechanics is another reason that points to truth being relative 
and needing defense against the attacks of SOM.   

Again, sorry for the intrusion, but thank you for your and Steve's
consideration.


Marsha




On Dec 15, 2010, at 1:19 PM, Matt Kundert wrote:

> 
> Marsha said 1:
> 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 said 2:
> 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.
> 
> Marsha said 3:
> Truth is not absolute.  Truth is not relative.  Truth is a static pattern 
> of value - delusion.  Throw it out and you experience divine silence.
> 
> Steve said:
> Throw away all truths and you've just discarded a bunch of useful 
> tools.
> 
> Marsha said 4:
> Exactly my point.  And since 'static patterns R us,' to understand 
> them as relative is important to the way we choose to live.
> 
> Matt:
> Marsha's delimiting of the MoQ as a kind of epistemological 
> relativism, and not cultural or moral, is a great step in definition, 
> in particular her addendum that this _understanding_ of relativity 
> is itself an important plank in who we culturally are.  It is what 
> Isaiah Berlin basically laid out as the way of democracy versus the 
> way of totalitarianism in his famous "Two Concepts of Liberty."
> 
> The only place where I, and presumably Steve, back away is that 
> while we agree with the substance of what Marsha calls 
> epistemological relativism, we don't feel the force of the "should" 
> in (1) and don't see the point of "delusion" in (3).  We have 
> different vocabularies for negotiating the issues and label-wars of 
> philosophical discussion.  However, the underlying content--when 
> we push aside the idiosyncratic differences in stating points--is a 
> Pirsigian and Jamesian one.  (And Rortyan.)
> 
> Matt
> 		 	   		  
> 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


 
___