[MD] Humanism

[david buchanan]

No, Marsha. As I've explained several times already, I do not think the MOQ or pragmatism is a form of relativism. As in the quote below, Pirsig says this explicitly several times. It's not honest to pick the one that suits you and ignore the rest. A coherent understanding of the MOQ will include them all, obviously. 
To say that truth is "the highest quality explanation at a given time" means that truth is provisional. The pragmatic theory of truth says that our ideas are constrained by empirical reality. That's not relativism either. It says there can be many truths but that's not relativism either. That's called pluralism. Is it going to make any difference if I keep telling you this over and over again? No, I really don't think so.
If you ever ask this question again, you can just dig into the archives yourself. 

What was that thing I was saying about incorrigibility? Jesus, this must be the fourth of fifth time we've been through this already. 


Marsha:   
> As far as truth being relative:
> 
> 
> Anthony writes:
> “Intellectual values include truth, justice, freedom, democracy and,
> trial by jury. It’s worth noting that the MOQ follows a pragmatic
> notion of truth so truth is seen as relative in his system while
> Quality is seen as absolute.  In consequence, the truth is defined
> as the highest quality intellectual explanation at a given time. "
>      (McWatt,Anthony,MOQ Textbook)   
> 
> 
> Marsha:
> See?


> > Pirsig says:
> > "Man is the measure of all things." Yes, that's what he is saying about Quality. Man is not the source of all things, as the subjective idealists would say. Nor is he the passive observer of all things, as the objective idealists and materialists would say. The Quality which creates the world emerges as a relationship between man and his experience. He is a participant in the creation of all things. 
> > The one thing that doesn't fit what he says and what Plato said about the Sophists is their profession of teaching virtue. All accounts indicate this was absolutely central to their teaching, but how are you going to teach virtue if you teach the relativity of all ethical ideas? Virtue if it implies anything at all, implies an ethical absolute. . . . 
> > Quality! Virtue! Dharma! That is what the Sophists were teaching! Not ethical relativism. Not pristine virtue. But aretê. Excellence. Dharma! Before the Church of Reason. Before substance. Before form. Before mind and matter. Before dialectic itself. Quality had been absolute. Those first teachers of the Western world were teaching Quality, and the medium they had chosen was that of rhetoric. He has been doing it right all along. . . .
> > 
> > 
> > dmb says:
> > See?
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> ___
>  
> 
> 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/md/archives.html