[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[X Acto]

not from my own reading Gav,
niether Plato, Socrates nor Aristotle
say that. Both are relative, Pirsig
in the same tradition agrees that the test
of the good, which is a species of the true,
lies in experience. The emphasis of this
tradition is in meaning.



----- Original Message ----
From: gav <gav_gc at yahoo.com.au>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Sat, February 6, 2010 6:30:46 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Intellect's Symposium

plato: good is relative; truth is absolute
pirsig: truth is relative; good is absolute

is this summary accurate?



--- On Sun, 7/2/10, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> From: david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [MD] Intellect's Symposium
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Received: Sunday, 7 February, 2010, 9:55 AM
> 
> 
> 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/
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 


      __________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo!7: Catch-up on your favourite Channel 7 TV shows easily, legally, and for free at PLUS7. www.tv.yahoo.com.au/plus7
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/