[MD] Know-how

[Steven Peterson]

Hi DMB,

Are you really this much of an intellectual fraud? You've repeatedly
asserted that Rorty is a relativist and James is not. I've asked you
three times already to please supply a definition of relativism with
respect to truth that backs up your claim--a definition that Rorty
fits and James does not. I can only conclude that you can't do it. You
just don't know what relativism with respect to truth is and are just
taking such wiki quotes asserting that "many commentators" say that
Rorty is a relativist as justification fro your claim. How do we know
that all these "many commentators" don't also think that James is a
relativist? How do we know that you have any idea what you are talking
about when you continually refuse to define relativism?

You objections to Rorty as a relativist with respect to truth will
continue to fall flat until you can say what relativism with respect
to truth is. Your claim that Rorty is a moral relativist and a
relativist with respect to justification will also fall flat when you
are unable to assert that slavery or female genital mutilation has
always been wrong wherever and whenever it was practiced regardless of
whether or not anyones's belief in them led them personally to
successful action.



> dmb said to Steve:
> What? We are supposing a distinction between knower and known?!? That is SOM and I'm not supposing any such thing. The knower and known are derived from pure experience and so they are in the conceptual buckets, not the pre-conceptual stream. Again, this is an attack on the myth of the given. It replaces SOM. I thought you understood that. You have read Lila, right?
>
>
> Steve replied:
>
> ....Epistemology has always been about a knower and what is known. As the theory of knowledge, what else could it be? I don't know how we could talk about knowledge without using these concepts,..  Radical empiricism takes you so far as to say that "knower" and "known" are both concepts or static quality, but when you get into epistemology we will always be using these concepts in asking what we can know and what ought to count as justification for knowledge claims.
>
>
>
>
> dmb says:
> Okay, well that explains why you've seemed so "thick" on this topic. You are stuck in SOM, just like Rorty.
>
>
> Radical empiricism is epistemology by the way. For a radical empiricist, experience IS reality and that means that epistemology IS the only ontology you get. When you see that, maybe we can talk. Otherwise, everything I say will continue to be misunderstood.
>
> I had the wrong idea about you Steve. Somewhere I got the impression that you basically understand what Pirsig is saying but lately I've realized that you are confused about everything. This is a genuinely surprising and disappointing revelation.

Steve:
There is no new revelation here--just another evasion on your part
which is also nothing new. In addition to refusing to define
relativism with respect to truth, you are refusing to acknowledge the
fact that your examples of radical empiricist "pure experience"
epistemology (your drug user, baby, and meditator) are knowers. You
have not told us how we can talk about epistemology--the theory of
knowledge--without using the concepts of knower and known.

My assertion that radical empiricism is good for metaphysics in
denying the ontological status of knower and known gives you nothing
with respect to epistemology that takes us beyond simply saying that
some behaviors lead to successful action while others do not. I'm not
the one confused here. You throw around terms like metaphysics,
relativism and epistemology, but you don't seem to know what they
mean.

Regards,
Steve