[MD] The Relativist's journey

[MarshaV]

Hi dmb,

PLEASE SUPPLY THE SOURCE FOR THE DEFINITION OF RELATIVISM (the one in the nutshell) YOU SUPPLIED:

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.



On Nov 21, 2011, at 3:59 PM, david buchanan wrote:

>  Calling Pirsig a relativist is not only philosophically incorrect and inconsistent with the drama of the story, it's also kind of insulting. 


Marsha:
I have said I understand the MoQ to be epistemologically relativistic.  You keep conflating cultural relativism and epistemological relativism.   The quotes in Lila concerning the anthropologists are clearly about cultural relativism.  And you have not supplied the source for the definition you provided.    

Here is a standard (sourced) definition of relativism:


noun Philosophy .
any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments.  

	(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativism)  

Please note that it does not preclude judging which of competing truths may be better.  


 
 From LILA:

“…if Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then it becomes possible for more than one set of truths to exist. Then one doesn't seek the absolute Truth.' One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of things with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until something better comes along. One can then examine intellectual realities the same way one examines paintings in an art gallery, not with an effort to find out which one is the 'real' painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of value. There are many sets of intellectual reality in existence and we can perceive some to have more quality than others, but that we do so is, in part, the result of our history and current patterns of values.  

   (LILA, Chapter 8)

Since you ignored my last post on the subject, I will repeat:

Anthony:
“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."  

RMP:
If the past is any guide to the future this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until something better comes along. One can then examine intellectual realities the same way he examines paintings in an art gallery, not with an effort to find out which one is the ‘real’ painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of value. There are many sets of intellectual reality in existence and we can perceive some to have more quality than others, but that we do so is, in part, the result of our history and current patterns of values. (Pirsig, 1991, p.103)”

    (McWatt,Anthony, 'AN INTRODUCTION TO ROBERT PIRSIG’S METAPHYSICS OF QUALITY' 2005, p.147)

 Marsha:
The Buddhist have long recognized conventional truth as relative:

"The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths differentiates between two levels of truth (Sanskrit: satya) in Buddhist discourse: a "relative" or commonsense truth (Pāli: sammuti sacca), and an "ultimate" or absolute, spiritual truth (Pāli: paramattha sacca)."
	(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths)
 

Marsha:
And the correlation between conventional truth and static quality has been duly noted by Anthony:

"‘Static quality’ refers to anything that can be conceptualised and is a synonym for the conditioned in Buddhist philosophy."

   (McWatt, Anthony,'AN INTRODUCTION TO ROBERT PIRSIG’S METAPHYSICS OF QUALITY', 2005, p.29) 
 

Marsha:
Dmb presented this Granger quote:

"Socrates recognizes the potential force of sophistical rhetoric, and he is concerned that if the goal of rhetoric is simply to persuade people about a certain vision of 'the good', it might be used to appeal to the emotions instead of to reason - in a manner that will lead the polis away from 'true knowledge', rather than toward it. The most powerful element in society would then be free to control the way the good is defined and embodied in that society's laws. In short, the sophist's rhetoric could be used to promote the most robust and destructive sort of relativism, one where the good is determined by little more than the accidents of power and convention. Socrates thus finds it necessary to silence Gorgias in short order and, as 'Phaedrus' saw it, turn Gorgias's rhetorical art into an object that he can then cut to pieces with his well-honed analytic knife." 
	(David Granger, "John Dewey, Robert Pirsig and the Art of Living", 46)


Marsha:
PLEASE NOTE:  Granger doesn't condemn all relativism, he only rejects a "destructive sort of relativism".  And Plato's presentation of relativism, by Socrates, was very useful in promoting his (Plato's) own philosophy.  Within the MoQ, the Good may be determined by placement on the four-level pattern structure.  There are many types of relativism, and multiple arguments for and against this perspective,that, in turn, touches many philosophical disciplines.  To conflate multiple types is a very narrow, static method to protect your man James where common understanding has him:

“It was classic William James, imbued with a sense of the relativism of all knowledge, a respect for and curiosity about alternative perspectives, an instinct to analyze clearly and thoroughly but to develop a synthesis wherever possible, and a conviction that the truth of any idea or thing is best understood by observing its action in the world.
 
	(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/americancollection/american/genius/william_bio.html)






 
___