[MD] The Relativist's journey

[118]

Marsha,
That is a very low quality deduction IMO .  Can you support it?

Mark

On Nov 22, 2011, at 10:50 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> dmb,  
> 
> 
> Oh, your definition doesn't have a source.   Your definition of 'relativism' is whatever you think it is.  The issue is is whether truth (static patterns) is relative within the MoQ.  
> 
> 
> Marsha 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 22, 2011, at 1:00 PM, david buchanan wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Marsha shouted at dmb:
>> PLEASE SUPPLY THE SOURCE FOR THE DEFINITION OF RELATIVISM (the one in the nutshell) YOU SUPPLIED:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> dmb says (again):
>> 
>> I gave you the definition you asked for and I showed you exactly how and where Pirsig uses the word "relativism" in a way that fits that definition. Since the issue is whether or not Pirsig is a relativist, what could be more relevant and appropriate? If that's not good enough for you, then you're just not a reasonable person. Granger's description of Pirsig's relationship to the Sophists also supports this definition.
>> 
>> Why do you always pretend to want answers that you already have and don't really want anyway? It's boring. Go away. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>                         
>> 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