[MD] Relativism

[X Acto]

Hi Ron,

On Behalf Of X Acto
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 8:49 PM
> 
> Steve,
> Dave has provided several quotes over the course of this arguement.
> Which
> stated that Rorty felt that any epistomologial theory of truth is
> meaningless,
> Dave points out that this is true if one is speaking to the context of
> objective
> truth in an ontological way.
> Objective truth is culturally derrived. Pirsig and James remark how
> truth
> is a species of the good. Connecting truth and experience, that is why
> everyone can agree to "the good" but disagree over the truth.
> 
> Which is one good reason Bo's SOL fails to explain how DQ/SQ has
> greater
> explanitory power.
> 
> 
[Mary Replies] 
Fascinating.  I'm trying to figure out what you mean here.  What does SOL
have to do with it?
  
SOL fails DQ/SQ because with SOL everyone should be able to arrive at an
"objective" truth, though DQ/SQ denies the existence of it?
Or
SOL fails DQ/SQ because it does not include an admission of the existence of
DQ/SQ?
Or
?

Ron:
Those are some examples, it does not explain how DQ/SQ supplies greater
explainitory power to Objective intellectual values. The value of a DQ/SQ
explaination is precisly the idea that Objective intellectual values are not the only
explaination of experience.
Taking DQ/SQ in an objective understanding simply falls to the logic trap
of attempting to solve the problem by using different terms to stand for
the same meaning. 
To say that that matter is static quality and energy is dynamic, really is'nt
bringing anything to the table for scientists. It simply restates that all experience
is objectively derrived from matter and energy.

nothing new

It neglects Quantum physics and theory.