[MD] The Relativist's journey

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Marsha]
And that opinion is relative to your pattern life history. I will 
continue to follow my interest in the relationship between the MoQ and 
Buddhism based on my pattern life history and immediate experience.

[Arlo]
In other words, if you want to bury your head in the sand, that's your 
business. I get it.  Just like with the 'the MOQ is theism' advocates, 
at the end of the day that's what it boils down to, just like I said, 
"If I want to think the MOQ is a theism, then you can't make me think 
otherwise."

The end result here is that you are using a definition of 'relativism' 
based on a translation that denies the Western term in used correctly, 
within a Western culture, and you're demanding the most important thing 
in all this is that the term 'relativism' is maintained, even though 
this is only someone's approximate translation from an original text of 
which language you do not speak.

[Marsha]
Oh, but do you think Steve Hagen really was talking about 'contextualism'?

[Arlo]
I have no idea. I'm not familiar with Hagen, and I'm not fluent with 
translated Eastern languages and cultures to know if "contextualism" is 
a better translation for the original Buddhist term or not. My point is 
that we should begin with 'meaning' and look for terms that successfully 
embrace that within the context of our dialogues.

And if we are forced to redefine words, then we need to make sure we are 
clear about that, and why redefinition is better than finding a more 
appropriate word. You would need to start off every conversation with "I 
am using the term 'relativism' in a way that is different than how you 
use the term, but rather than meet over meaning, my goal is demand that 
you adopt the term even if it means something entirely different within 
this context."

For example, as someone interested in the works of Vygotsky, I know that 
within that dialogue if I say "mediation" it means something entirely 
different than if I were to use in nearly every other context (where 
most would think I was talking about some form of intervention or 
counseling). But I know what the meaning is so that I can find or 
explain terms should I need to use this meaning in a non-Vygotskian 
context. I don't care that I am not using the word "mediation", its just 
a word, I care about meaning.

And, I had a student tell me once he thought 'mediation' meant a point 
of over-saturation on television or broadcast media. It was funny, and I 
kinda like how that sounds, but if I walked into a Vygostsky conference 
using the word that way they'd all be unnecessarily confused.

[Marsha]
Or maybe we should reject Hagen's book because of his ignorance in using 
such a, as dmb said, "dirty word".

[Arlo]
I don't care what word anyone uses, I care about the meaning, and the 
necessity of shared meaning within discourse. I care about the 
unnecessary confusion that arises when people redefine words to fit 
where other words might bring clarity and understanding. Within Hagen's 
discourse, to his audience, perhaps his lexical choices are appropriate. 
But again, I'm not fluent enough in Eastern languages/cultures to demand 
that the term MUST be translated as 'relative' and that everyone else 
should redefine what this word means so that we can keep it.

You see, that puts the emphasis on a word, not a meaning. Just like 
those who demanded that "the MOQ is theistic". They keep the word and 
sound, but in doing so the meaning of that term is completely ignored to 
the point where it no longer has any relevance in the conversation.

And even if you say the Eastern concept of "relativism" is 
different/better than the Western, then you're left saying "The MOQ is 
Easternly relativistic, but not Westernly relativistic." And you think 
this improves understanding? Why not drop the term entirely and just say 
what the MOQ is by explaining Eastern relativism?