[MD] relative.

[MarshaV]

Tuukka,

I am not going to discuss the term 'relativism'.  I can only state, as I have in the past, when it comes to 'relativism' I don't find the term 'relativism', philosophically speaking, is a "dirty word" or a "term of abuse"."   


Marsha 



On Jan 12, 2012, at 10:43 AM, mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net wrote:

> 
> 
>> 
>> Anthony writes:
>> “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 of 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 our history and current patterns of values. (Pirsig, 1991, p.103)”
>> 
>>  (McWatt,Anthony,MOQ Textbook)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> I don't think relativism, philosophically speaking, is a "dirty  word" or a "term of abuse"." There is nothing in the dictionary's  (Philosophy) definition of 'relativism' ' (posted below) or the  dictionary's definition of 'relative' (posted below) that indicates  either term to be valueless or prohibits assigning value.  And the  quote from Anthony states that " truth is seen as relative in his  system [MoQ]".
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> relativism
>> 
>> noun (Philosophy) .
>> any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying  with individuals and their environments.
>> 
>> (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativism)
>> 
> 
> Tuukka:
> Is relativism itself relativistic?
> 
> If yes, "relativism" is a Western idea called "descriptive relativism", which, as an ideology, is a blank slate and a preference to keep it so. It doesn't recognize the existence of Dynamic Quality. It does not seem to do much else than to "observe" objective quality.
> 
> If no, "relativism" could be "meta-ethical relativism", which is another Western idea. According to it, there, simply put, is no other kind of quality than subjective.
> 
> Also, "relativism" could be "normative relativism", which is yet another Western idea. It is an absolute statement according to which any kind of behaviour must be tolerated. So it's basically a contradiction. Because it's a contradiction, it permits both yes and no as an answer to the question of whether it is a relativistic truth itself.
> 
> If relativism is any of the three above, Mark is right and you are misrepresenting Buddhism.
> 
> If relativism neither is (provably) relativistic nor is (provably) nonrelativistic, then you are apparently using "relativism" in the Buddhist sense. But then you are mistaken in believing you are building a bridge. You are not building a bridge but trying to operate a battering ram and make Western people abandon all three above familiar forms of relativism in favor of something they have not heard much about.
> 
> Your dictionary definition is completely worthless because it doesn't even specify which one of these four options is relativism. It is useless as a reference, never use it again, never waste the brains of yourself and others with that. Never resort to it as something worth resorting to. Resort to the myriad of papers and books you have read on the subject, or even Wikipedia, like I do.
> 
> And when Anthony says "truth is seen as relative in his system", is that truth relative or not? I'm concerned that you don't seem like you have ever thought about whether the details of this question are relevant. What kind of articles and papers have you read as to not understand that this is not a simple question?
> 
> It's quite annoying that you portray yourself as someone who is an expert on the subject, yet you don't even know which way to go when someone does not understand you and needs clarification. Have I missed something? Are you not building the bridge at MD? Are you a teacher at a Zen center or something? Your supervisor might recommend you to speak of relativism there. It's not such a good idea, but he still might do so. So if that's the case, why don't you give me the e-mail of your supervisor? I'd like to explain to him that there's a better alternative.
> 
> -Tuukka


 
___