[MD] The Relativist's journey

[MarshaV]

dmb,

What Andre thinks is no more supporting evidence than what you think.  

Marsha 



On Nov 23, 2011, at 10:05 AM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> From October of 2010
> 
> Andre said:
> Marsha, of late, has used the above quote to defend her notion of truth as relative, and, more importantlythat truth, in the MOQ, is treated as a relative term.
> Firstly she states that 'My primary mission is NOT to support 'contemporary pragmatism'. (my emphasis).However, Anthony's quote most definately states that the 'MOQ follows a pragmatic notion of truth...'.
> This immediately dismisses the import of the use of this quote.
> Marsha says: 'Your(or for that matter the MOQ) approach is your (or the MOQ) approach. Mine is different.
> Thus Marsha is not interested in the MOQ approach to truth claims.
> Further, she also (conveniently?) fails to acknowledge a reference to a footnote contained in the samequote which occurs at the end of the '...Quality is seen as absolute' sentence. This footnote says: 'Thepragmatic notion of truth is examined further in Section 2.7'.
> As stated above, Marsha is not in support of pragmatism, let alone a 'pragmatic notion of truth'.
> So how she can use a quote, which she rejects herself, to validate her own stance on the relative nature oftruth is beyond me.
> 
>> From: dmbuchanan at hotmail.com
>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:00:56 -0700
>> Subject: Re: [MD] The Relativist's journey
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha said:
>> Since you want an actual question, how do you deal with this quote, about truth being relative, from the MoQ textbook? 
>> 
>> 
>> dmb says:
>> 
>> The question is not about whether or not I can deal with the quote, but HOW MANY TIMES have I already done so. Here's one of those times. This one was more than a year ago ...
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 21, 2010, at 3:01 PM, david buchanan wrote to Marsha:
>> 
>> ... You are confusing relativism with the >>> provisional nature of truth. The pragmatic theory of truth rejects the >>> notion of an absolute truth or an objective truth but ideas are true or not >>> depending on whether or not they function in experience. There is a >>> practical and empirical test of truth in the MOQ. Anthony probably should >>> have used the word "provisional" in that sentence. That word really is a >>> better fit with the description of truth in his next sentence, as the best >>> explanation "at a given time". >>> >>> Charges of relativism got James into hot water but Pirsig says his MOQ can >>> adopt pragmatism and radical empiricism without falling into that trap. >>> It's a bad place to be, according to almost any philosopher. In ZAMM we see >>> how he takes sides with the Sophists, who he says were slandered as >>> relativists. Pirsig is consistent about this concern with false charges of >>> relativism against his main heroes and allies. >>> And y
> et
>>  here you are saying the MOQ is just that. >>> >>> Sorry, but the evidence is plainly against you. If you want to be a >>> relativist, that's one thing. But don't trash Pirsig's work. 
>> 


 
___