[MD] [Bulk] Re: Humanism

[MarshaV]

On Nov 14, 2010, at 3:35 PM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> Marsha said to dmb:
> You have yet to produce a persuasive argument. Your tactic is more to present a quote and ask the person to 'think about it,' or write "you should be able to see that for yourself." I've not seen a persuasive argument or an explanation of what you present as evidence. Have you had any classes in formal and informal logic?
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> 
> If my arguments were unpersuasive because the evidence was not relevant or because they were not logical then you would be able to refute them by showing this. But you never have. Here's your chance. For you convenience, I have reproduce one of my most recent arguments against your relativism. It is the very thing you deny, namely an explanation and interpretation of the quote you use as evidence for relativism. Go ahead, tell us what's wrong with this argument. Tell us why it does not persuade you. Point out the flaws in my logic. I'm betting you won't. I'm betting that you can not and I fully expect nothing but insults and evasions. Surprise me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> dmb said:
> ... I don't think Ant was being careless and I do not disagree with what he's saying. I just think Marsha is reading it badly.

You think?  So what?  


> dmb:
> She's resting her case on Ant's use of the term "relative" in describing the provisionality of truth.

Marsha:
Conventional (provisional) truths are static patterns of value.  The only truth I know to discuss are static patterns of value.  Do you know of another type of truth you'd like to discuss?   And yes, conventional truths, static patterns of value are relative.   RMP has equated the Buddhist's conventional reality to static quality.  


> dmb:
> To say that truth is relative to a particular historical context simply means that truth is not eternal, that it evolves, that it is never final.  But that doesn't mean that truth is JUST a matter of perspective.

Marsha:
Or stated another way stating it that truth is relative to an individual's history of static value patterns.  Your use of JUST is pejorative, and nonsense. 


> dmb:
> Provisional truths are still constrained by empirical reality.

Marsha:
I don't see that this is saying something that negates the fact that static quality is relative.  



> dmb:
> They still have to agree with experience and function as the best possible explanation as we move into further experience. 

Marsha:
Who i doing the agreeing?  How do they do this agreeing?   Who judges that agreement has been reached?   


> dmb:
> As James puts it, the pragmatist is "pent in" more than anyone. Pragmatic truths exist "between the whole body of funded truths squeezed from the past", he says, "and the coercions of the world of sense". In other words, the truth is constrained by the mythos in which it's stated AND by the empirical reality in which it's used. This empirical reality is not conceived as a material reality but it is still a very strong form of empiricism. And that is very different from relativism.

Marsha:
Form, or conventional reality, according to Buddhism is relative truth. 


> dmb:
> Richard Rorty, for example, is accused of relativism because he denies the possibility of empiricism - or any kind of epistemology. He thinks truth is not something philosophers should even discuss. And since Rorty is the main reviver of pragmatism, James and Dewey scholars have been defending the classical pragmatists against charges or relativism all over again. Defending against this charge has literally been going on for a hundred years. As we can see in James's complaints about pragmatism's "impudent slanderers", defense against this charge began while the thing was still being invented.

Marsha:
B Alan Wallace reminds us:  "The origin of doctrine of the two truths is found in a teaching given by the Buddha on a mountaintop in northeastern India called Vulture's Peak.  There he first expounded on emptiness, and made the statement "Form is emptiness and emptiness is form.  Note that "form" is considered relative truth and "emptiness"  ultimate truth in this system." 


> dmb:
> We're supposed to be persuaded by the arguments and the evidence and this is CONTRASTED with arguments from authority. Arguments from authority are based on the assumption that "Thee Truth" is the sole property of some thing or other. If you believe the bible is the written word of God, for example, there is no way to argue against that no matter what the evidence is.

Marsha:
I have been persuaded by argument, rational thought and insight that conventional truths, static patterns of value, are relative to biological apparatus, memory and dynamic quality.   If you have evidence that RMP no longer believes that truth is relative within the MoQ, please present it.  You've presented nothing that persuades me static patterns of value (truth) are not relative.  


> dmb:
> Marsha and others seem to be confused about the difference between traditional forms of social and political "authority" and intellectual "authority". The latter simply refers to a competent or reliable source of information. That kind of authority is based on a very reasonable belief, namely that we like to rely on people who know what they're talking about. I do not think this kind of authority is any cause for alarm. Nobody should feel persecuted or oppressed by an encyclopedia entry or a quote from the text we're discussing. Frankly, I think that kind of reaction is completely ridiculous. What kind of mind resents the use of openly shared meanings and handy public resources?  

Marsha:
I do not think you know what you are talking about. And frankly, what you think is not important to me.   What is reasonable to you is based on your static pattern history.  And what is reasonable to me based on my extensive reading of Buddhism, reading the MoQ literature, contemplation and insight.   But of course, i am not asking you to take my word as truth.  Find out for yourself.   


___