[MD] Relativism

[skutvik at online.no]

All, MOQ discuss

18 May:

Steve said to dmb:
> ... What makes your conception of relativism seem so strange to me is
> that you say you are a pragmatist and a Pirsigian, yet you still find
> it interesting to ask, "is it absolute or relative?" which amounts to
> asking "is the quality in the subject or the object?"

dmb says:
> Nobody is offering the absolute instead of the relative. And SOM
> should have nothing to do with this debate and it wouldn't have
> anything to do with it except that you keep bringing it in. It is
> irrelevant and it is confusing you. 

Steve and DMB have had this dispute, that looks like reindeers with 
their horns intertwined, going for an eternity, it sounds like Steve has a 
grain of Quality in his reasoning but I'm frustrated that they don't see 
that relativism/absolutism is a modern version of SOM and thus what 
the MOQ make short thrift of. 

Now, what kind of relativism/absolutism  they discuss I'm not sure, but 
SOM is behind all kinds and it was the discovery that  absolutism 
dissolved in the infinite number of hypotheses insight that shook the 
very young - college student - Phaedrus so much (ZAMM page 107)  

    But there it was, the whole history of science, a clear story of 
    continuously new and changing explanations of old facts. The 
    time spans of permanence seemed completely random he 
    could see no order in them. Some scientific truths seemed to 
    last for centuries, others for less than a year. Scientific truth 
    was not dogma, good for eternity, but a temporal quantitative 
    entity that could be studied like anything else.   

But as we know he understood that relativism and absolutism - 
subjectivism  and objectivism -  is  an aggregate, you can't have one 
without the other - he called it SOM and said it is a static fall-out of 
Dynamic Quality. Is this completely unknown to you two?  
   

Bodvar