[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[david buchanan]

Marsha said:
 Here's is a broad definition of relativism by Ugo Zilioli: "Statements in a certain domain can be deemed correct or incorrect only relative to some framework"

dmb says:
Okay. That's a very vague version of the specific case I just made, which was relativism as it relates to linguistic contexts. I believe that definition is far too general to be meaningful here AND it comes from a defender of relativism. 

Marsha said:
Appealing to the authority of 'most postmodernists?'  Is this the 'case' you made? 

dmb says:
Authority? I don't know what you're talking about. I merely described the general position held by postmodern thinks in addition to the particular position held by a specific thinker. Your objections and questions seem increasingly insincere, like you're trying to complicate simple things on purpose. Why?
dmb had said:
As I understand it, the MOQ agrees with contextualism (we're suspended in language) and it agrees that these contexts are constructed (analogy upon analogy) but it says these contexts are not constructed arbitrarily (Quality is not arbitrary or capricious) and the pragmatic theory of truth does not abandon empirical restraints (it has to agree with experience and function in experience). These non-linguistic constraints distinguish the MOQ from this relativism. 

Marsha replied:
Where does the MoQ agree with contextualism?   I thought the MoQ agreed with Protagoras' Measure Doctrine.  Arbitrary and capricious?  Is 'arbitrary and capricious' your definition of relativism?

dmb says:

All of the stuff I put in parentheses references Pirsig quotes. I can't tell you what page it is where Pirsig agrees with the notion that "we're suspended in language", where Pirsig says our world is built of analogies, where Pirsig says that Quality is "not arbitrary or capricious". But you've seen them. You know they're in there. And how can you ask about the measure doctrine as if I hadn't just quoted Pirsig on that? He said virtue "was absolutely central to their teaching, but how are you going to teach virtue if you teach the relativity of all ethical ideas?" and "QUALITY! VIRTUE! DHARMA! THAT is what the Sophists were teaching! NOT ethical relativism."?

Marsha said:
There is only one kind of truth individuals have knowledge of and that is static quality, and that is relative to the "different static pattern of life history" and the immediate direct experience.   As I understand it, the MoQ agrees with relativism (relative to experience).


dmb says:

Well I don't know how to distinguish that from solipsism or plain old narcissism. I don't understand how you can relativism out of this stuff when Pirsig is so plainly and explicitly saying that the Sophists were teaching Quality and "not ethical relativism". Especially since he's saying that just as the central quest of the whole book is finally resolved.


But you are at a distinct advantage being a relativist because that means you can't really be wrong about relativism or anything else. Must be nice. Maybe I should convert and then I can just respond to objections by saying, "well, it's true for me" or "it's true in my context". That'll be so much easier. Ah, I feel relieved of a great burden already. Thanks Marsha.




 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/