[MD] relative.

[118]

Marsha,
By all means, please do.  If I present something which you see as wrong, please question it, I can always learn.

Cheers,

Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark

On Jan 14, 2012, at 10:29 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Seems I'm in a rhetorical lose/lose situation, so I'll sit it out for a while.  It may be interesting to see what will emerge.  I can shout jeers from the sidelines too.  
> 
> 
> Marsha 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Jan 14, 2012, at 11:48 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Marsha,
>> Are you claiming "a static pattern of value" to be an absolute which defines relativism?  Is this your basis for relativism and all the rest?  How does the static pattern truth fall outside your conception of relative truth.  Once you have stated that all truth is relative, what do you base any statement on.  If the static pattern theory is of highest quality for you, what makes you claim this?  Break this static pattern theory into its components so that I can understand why it has such value for you.  I am trying to help you here.  I don't think people understand fundamentally what you are presenting.  You can help us here.
>> 
>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>> Mark
>> 
>> On Jan 13, 2012, at 9:12 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi dmb,
>>> 
>>> Pragmatism, like relativism, is a static pattern of value, but conventionally speaking, the MoQ improves on James’ (relativistic) pragmatism. Static quality doesn't have to agree with experience, static quality IS experience.  -  What you and Andre do well is to have tantrums.
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> 
>>> relativism
>>> 
>>> noun (Philosophy) .
>>> any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments.  
>>> 
>>> (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativism)  
>>> 
>>> pragmatism
>>> 
>>> noun
>>> A philosophic movement or system, having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth or value.
>>> 
>>> (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Pragmatism)
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Marsha
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> 
>>> On Jan 13, 2012, at 6:04 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> david buchanan posted this:
>>>> 
>>>> Many of James' best-turned phrases—truth's cash value (James 1907, p. 200) and the true is only the expedient in our way of thinking (James 1907, p. 222)— were taken out of context and caricatured in contemporary literature as representing the view where any idea with practical utility is true. William James wrote:It is high time to urge the use of a little imagination in philosophy. The unwillingness of some of our critics to read any but the silliest of possible meanings into our statements is as discreditable to their imaginations as anything I know in recent philosophic history. Schiller says the truth is that which 'works.' Thereupon he is treated as one who limits verification to the lowest material utilities. Dewey says truth is what gives 'satisfaction'! He is treated as one who believes in calling everything true which, if it were true, would be pleasant. (James 1907, p. 90)
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha replied:
>>>> Maybe that's how you understand it.  Maybe that is truth relative to your study and understanding.  RMP's MoQ "improves on James’ (relativistic) pragmatism"; that's my understanding. Likewise, as previously mentioned, Pirsig described Plato's accusation of relativism as vicious slander and the Stanford Encyclopedia says relativism is generally seen by philosophers as a "kiss of death". Your position is really quite ludicrous. 
>>>> Pragmatism is a theory of truth. It rejects absolute and eternal truths but there are empirical and conceptual standards so that truths are "wedged and controlled" between the flux of experience and the conceptual order. In other words, the truth has to agree with experience and it has to make sense. This truth theory is not compatible with relativism because relativism denies that there can be any such standards of truth.
>>>> Pragmatic truth is NOT "whatever works for me" or my culture. And to suggest otherwise really is vicious slander. James and Pirsig both deny it within their respective texts. (Andre and I already explained - several times - how you are misreading the quotes you constantly use.) Nobody is buying it. 
>>>> 
>>>> James wrote a kind of sequel to Pragmatism. It's called "The Meaning of Truth". I imagine that. In order to defend and extend his pragmatism, he wrote an entire book about truth. One of the most relevant chapters would be "Abstractionism and 'Relativismus'". I dare you to read i
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
> 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