[MD] The Relativist's journey

[MarshaV]

>> On Nov 22, 2011, at 9:33 AM, Steven Peterson <peterson.steve at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Steve:
>>> You have raised a lot of good points here. It seems that dmb's
>>> argument is with Ant McWatt as much as it is with you though for some
>>> reason he hasn't acknowledged that fact. dmb will, as always, have a
>>> tough time articulating what particular sort of relativism--some
>>> dangerous sort?--that applies to you but not equally well to James and
>>> Pirsig.


>> Mark 
>> Could you be more specific?


> Steve:
> I probably could if you say what you want me to be more specific
> about, but I'll gladly say some more general stuff.,..
> 
> dmb has long been trying to use the term relativism as a way of trying
> to criticize certain perspectives including mine, Matt's, Rorty's, and
> Marsha's, but dmb doesn't have anything that we don't have that can,
> say, be used against the arguments of the Nazis. He doesn't claim any
> foundation that we can't claim. Whether are are talking about moral or
> epistemic issues, there are no arguments that he can make that the
> rest of us so-called relativists are prevented from making. With
> regard to relativism, there is just no pragmatic difference between
> his own philosophical position and the ones he criticizes.
> 
> The only sort of relativism that is cause for concern is the moral
> paralysis sort. But none of us here suffer from that problem. That
> sort of paralysis among liberal intellectuals was becoming a serious
> problem in the multi-culty 90's (when Lila came out), but morally
> paralyzed relativists are getting harder and harder to find (thank
> goodness). I suggest that dmb try to find one of these people to argue
> with, or better yet, learn to distinguish between some dangerous sort
> of relativism and the Pirsigian, pragmatic, and Buddhist provisional
> views of epistemic and ethical truth that SOMers will see as
> relativism.
> 
> Why would an MOQer even want to wield an SOM-laden term like
> "relativism"? It is half of the old SOM Platypus,
> relativism/absolutism. It is a term based on an SOM premise that we
> deny. It is just another version of the wrong-headed question, "is the
> Quality in the subject or in the object?"

Hi Steve,

The bias against wielding the term "relativism" is one of Western-centric SOM.  The MoQ, as a bridge between East and West, should be able to handle that Buddhist's 'conventional truths' and MoQ 'static patterns' exist relative to a multiple of other causes (patterns) and conditions (patterns).  


Marsha

 
___