[MD] The Hero's journey

[118]

Hi Marsha,
One can say whatever one wants, so I have no idea what you are assuming.  Are you suggesting rules of preference?

Mark

On Nov 20, 2011, at 12:17 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> Marsha:
> For the sake of "taking words seriously' please present an exact  definition of 'relativism' as you are using it.   
> 
> 
> dmb answered in a nutshell:
> Relativism is the view that truth is relative to the culture or the individual, that there is no way to say that one truth is better than another.
> 
> 
> Marsha:
> By the way, dmb, your definition is begging the question, as it assumes the answer to the question being posed: that there is no way to say that one truth is better than another.   
> 
> __
> 
> 
> On Nov 20, 2011, at 2:12 PM, david buchanan wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hey Mark"
>> "Relativism" is a dirty word. Like "solipsism", it is a term of abuse used by philosophers against their enemies. Anyone who willingly wears those labels is either very brave or very foolish.
>> In the MOQ, truth is provisional and plural. The MOQ rejects ideas like objective truth, absolute truth, fixed and eternal truth, or any kind of single exclusive truth but the relativist thinks there is no truth as such, at least not about anything human, about anything beyond the physical facts. What's "true" is just whatever we agree upon from within our own ethno-centric perspective, from within our own intersubjective space. This is exactly why Sam Harris and lots of other people think that Richard Rorty is a relativist, for example. This is why Pirsig thinks Boas was a relativists, for another example. 
>> "Pluralism" is a much better word for the pragmatic theory of truth. James has been misinterpreted as pushing relativism since the day he first published, especially among the positivists and the absolutists, but James himself considered such charges to be "impudent slander" and fought hard to explain that the pragmatic truth is "wedged and controlled" like no other. Marsha's fondness for relativism can only be maintained by ignoring Pirsig's conspicuously negative comments about relativism (and the role it plays in undermining truth, morality and intellectual level values). Pirsig saw Plato's charge against the Sophists as vicious slander and he denies it quite emphatically. This occurs at the philosophical and dramatic climax of the story. Getting rid of relativism is one of the central points in taking on both Platonism and SOM.
>> 
>> She thinks the intellectual level can't escape from SOM and she thinks the MOQ is a form of relativism. I think that's profoundly wrong. It makes the MOQ into it's own worst enemy. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>                         
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 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