[MD] three questions

[MarshaV]

On Mar 4, 2010, at 3:22 PM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> 
> Marsha said to dmb:
> Your conflating 'absolute relativism' with 'relativism' is intellectual honesty???
> 
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> 
> Okay, I'll bite despite your tone. Sounds like you're all primed up with distinctions and that's cool. This will be a chance to take them out for a walk. What is "absolute relativism"? (Sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.) How is that different from plain, naked, unqualified "relativism"? How does "conflation" constitute intellectual dishonesty? (I think the term refers to a conceptual error wherein two different things are fused in to one thing, as opposed to "confusion", which means the terms on either side of the distinction are backwards or mixed up in some way.) And finally, when and how did I conflate the two? 

Marsha:
They're just static patterns of value, and at the moment  discussing this topic is not very appealing.


> 
> 
> Marsha said:
> And your bragging about what you believe to be your intellectual competency makes me think you a fool.
> 
> dmb says:
> 
> Yea, okay. I'm a fool. But I've also worked very hard for a long time. Why do you feel the need to belittle that? Why does that count against me? And here, of all places! My efforts are aimed at understanding the MOQ better and then getting it out there, you know?

Marsha:
Being this is a MoQ list, what is this 'self' that considers itself so intellectually competent?   Only you have been to university.  Only you have worked hard.  Only your education is right.   Nope.   Not interested.  


> 
> I hope to get it out there as something other than relativism, by the way. That's why I'm interested in distinguishing it from

>  brand of pragmatism, which is very frequently criticized for its relativism. It's a big issue and it pretty much means a war between the absolutists and the nihilists. I think Pirsig's pragmatism is neither. Pragmatists and other philosophers are already talking about this issue in a certain way. I don't recall any of them using the term "absolute relativism". Usually it's a matter of "cognitive relativism" or "cultural relativism". Because pragmatists deny that there is a single objective truth, they are accused of cognitive relativism. Because they believe knowledge is provisional and contextual they are accused of cultural relativism. And usually, that's a dirty word. 


Marsha:
Too late.  At this time, these static patterns of value are not a priority.  


> 
> You're the only one I know that doesn't deny it like they've just been accused of murder. Even Rorty denies that he's a relativist. It cracks people up when he does, but still. 


Marsha:
In Mahayana Buddhism another name of conventional truths is relative truths, and I equate the MoQ's static quality with Buddhism's relative truths.   











 
___