[MD] william James.

[david buchanan]

Marsha said to dmb:
I have said that the MoQ is epistemologically relative (sq) and ontologically indeterminate (DQ), and that is what I mean when I call myself a relativist.


dmb says:

The phrase "epistemologically relative" is contradictory. Relativism is what you get when you don't have an epistemological position, when you think there are no standards by which to test or measure truth. The MOQ subscribes to an expanded form of empiricism. Pragmatism is a theory of truth and radical empiricism is also an epistemological position. They both say there are standards and tests for truth. Relativists say there are aren't. Empiricism and relativism are approximately opposite. 

I don't really know what "ontologically indeterminate" is supposed to mean but it doesn't matter because DQ is an empirical reality, not an ontological one. James's term for it was "pure experience" and Pirsig calls it an event, the cutting edge of experience and the primary empirical reality. The MOQ is about experience all the way down to subatomic particles. Philosophy just doesn't get any more empirical than that.

So what you mean by relativism, apparently, is a logical contradiction on top of a category error. Let's just say that's not exactly a brilliant or elegant idea. And you've added contradiction and error to construct an idiosyncratic definition of the central term in question! And I'm just talking about one claim in one sentence! Whew! To say the least, that's quite a mess.