[MD] [Bulk] Re: Humanism

[MarshaV]

> 
> [Arlo]
>> You and Marsha are reaching new heights of absurdity lately. But this harkens
>> back to what I had said to Bo, you can agree or disagree with Pirsig, you can
>> say "Bob was wrong" and "Bob was right" and you can offer something you think
>> is better. But what "view" of the MOQ do you think DMB has? What DMB does, and
>> what Pirsig thanked him for in the DVD, is keeping the discussion honest about
>> what Bob meant. 

> 
> Marsha to Arlo:
> Was my statement "I accept the MoQ rejects an absolute cultural relativism," 
> absurd?  Or was my statement "but truth, static patterns of value, are relative, 
> as Anthony states" absurd?  Is my having such an opinion absurd?  Or is your 
> statement "You (Mark) and Marsha are reaching new heights of absurdity lately" 
> absurd?  Or maybe you have a new bit of absurdity to offer?  Or possibly for you 
> to think that your opinion is not absurd, is even more absurd?  How do you 
> know?  What is your evidence?  How can you be sure?  May there possibly be 
> another explanation?  
> 
> 
> 
> Ron:
> It has been the interpretation of the term "relative" and it's meaning
> that is being disputed.
> Relative, in philosophic discussions, commonly refered to pejorativly
> as being synonomous with "subjective"
> 
> truth is subjective
> 
> I can understand the reasons why this is an uncomfortable statement.
> Because there seems to be a base of truths that are un mistakeably
> common to all. 
> Some things are better than others, not just to me,  but to everyone,
> and every living thing.
> 
> All meaning is derrived from it.



Marsha:
That some things are better than other does negate that truth is relative.  
I've read a bunch of books on relativism.  That relativism is "an comfortable 
statement" for some does not mean it is an uncomfortable position for all, 
Buddhism for example.  Epistemological relativism represents truth, 
conventional or static patterns of value, as relative to the individual making 
an evaluation, by his biological apparatuses, by his static pattern history and
by interaction with dynamic quality.  This is what is meant by Protagoras' 
statement "Man is the measure of all things; of things that are that they are, 
and of things that are not that they are not."   imho