Lee Love on tue 7 aug 07
and clear speech
On 8/6/07, claystevslat wrote:
The most obvious logical fallacy in relativism is that
relativism, by definition, proposes the absolute, relativism. So it
negates itself.
> No, Lee, when a government official claims that
> something is true because he says it is,
You are confusing fascism with a theocracy or fundamentalism.
For example, Goebbels knew he was using "facts" to manipulate folks.
Just read his writings. Politicians justify their lies because
they believe the ends justify the means. They see huma values abe
being flexble and utilitarian. That is relativistic.
To think one can possess the truth/beauty is equally
misguided. There are rules of the Universe that are not made simple
because we think of them: truth, beauty, goodness, etc. The
problem is not if these values exist or do not exist. It is more
about our ability to perceive them. We create many of our modern
problems because we do not recognize values outside of our thoughts
about them.
These perspectives on the nature of creativity and beauty
really have a huge influence upon how we approach our craft.
Getting back to craft standards in the face of industrial materialism
was an important factor in the craft movments of William Morris and
also Soetsu Yanagi. They were against the numbing effects of
materialistic relativism.
> other position being right) and claiming
> to possess ultimate truth.
Fundamentalist and theocracts mistakenly think they can
possess and use the truth. But this is a basic misunderstanding
about universal values. You cannot contain the infinite with a
finite mind.
> Just like some people claim there are absolute
> standards of beauty. And imply that they know
> that standard.
It is always dangerous to say the Emperor wares no clothes.
For example, the Gosntics were persecuted because they said the
priests were mistaken in their understanding of the teaching.
Typically, the priest type personality is not capable of understanding
the founder's realization, so they insist that what they are incapable
of does not exist. So you end up with fundamentalism.
Of course, we are lucky compared to those folks dealing with
religion. All you have to do where a creative object is concerned,
is look at the object. It is easy to see if the maker has an eye or
not or any understanding.
>And that anyone who doesn't
> agree with them is somehow deficient, or corrupt,
> etc. (Remember the Nazi effort to wipe out
> 'degenerate' art?)
This happens in misunderstanding about both values. There
was no objective criteria used by the Nazis and they dismissed very
beautiful work, simply because they did not correspond to their
relative values.
>
> But as something of a relativist* myself, I do
> recognize the possibility that you are right (or,
> depending on the subject, that any other
> absolutist** may be right).
You are a self-describe relativist. I haven't tried to put a
label on you that you don't accept. As I have stated, it is a
mistake to dismiss either value, especially where human work is
concerned. What you are doing is the same tactic that
anti-abortionist us to dismiss pro-choice people. It is difficult
for a fundamentalist to understand the balancing of two equally
important values, so they have to dismiss you into to opposite camp,
when you have no intention of supporting those views.
Huston Smith, in his recent book points out that the most
important aspect of the postmodern paradigm is multi-culturalism and
civil rights. So we have much to thank post modernism in that area.
But the biggest problem in not keeping relativism in balance,
especially in our times where every thing is changing so quickly, is
that folks do not have a foundation of stability to work from when
things are chaotic in their lives. As we see in our world, many
people turn to fundimentalism for this stability that post modernism
lacks. But that is erring in the opposite direction.
It is obvious that beauty exists outside of what you or I
say it is. All you have to do get out in Nature to see it.
The primary point that folks get confused about, is that in
our time, art is primarily about self expression, at the price of
devaluing beauty. This demeans art and reduces what we can learn
about the deeper aspects of our existence. Yes, art can be a
vehicle for our use, but we can also be a vehicle for art. This is
the pre-post modern way humans have approached art for most of our
existence.
But in the end, no amount of talk can show how close to
the mark we get in either approach. Only what we make can speak to
that.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
Henry David Thoreau
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
claystevslat on wed 8 aug 07
and clear speech
Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.
First, you say that
"The most obvious logical fallacy in relativism is that
relativism, by definition, proposes the absolute, relativism. So it
negates itself."
This is simply not true. Relativism, definition courtesy of
answers.com, is "A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that
conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are
relative to the persons or groups holding them."
Key words -- "not absolute." Relativism is not an absolutist
holding.
Now here I'm using absolutist in the non-political sense.
Again, courtesy of answers.com -- "An absolute doctrine, principle,
or standard."
See the difference?
Your Goebbels example is distasteful, but yes, I agree with you,
politicians do lie. And why? Because they believe that by lying
they will obtain a desirable result. Again, we agree!
And why do they believe that reprehensible actions can be
justified? Because they believe that there goal is so important,
that it's defensible as an absolute doctrine. THE NAZIS WERE
ABSOLUTISTS, NOT RELATIVISTS.
Were they relativists, they would have said "yes, we hate
Jews and Gypsies, but our beliefs are not absolute, our
moral values are not absolute, and are relative to us as
we hold them, and the persons belonging to those groups
may rightly feel as negatively about us as we do about them."
Not a very good campaign slogan for the final solution, eh?
I had alluded in passing to gnosticism, but you raised it
as you seem to think it supports your point. Gnosticism
has taken various forms over the years, but from the
author of the secret book of Thomas to the Cathars of
the Languedoc, they shared the idea that there was
'secret' knowledge, and if you were made privy to it
you would have access to salvation, which would be denied
to everyone else.
This belief in an absolute doctrine of salvation is, of
course, inherently absolutist.
And the idea that you had to have a Cathar 'consoling'
prior to your death, and eat and drink nothing after
being 'consoled' to achieve salvation; the belief that
there is no other path, is inherently absolutist.
As is the idea that you have to be a shaman-man/woman
to have real insight.
As I read your message it's clear that you have imputed
to my last post something that I did not intend. When
I used the construction "possessed of knowledge" I did not
intend to mean the idea that the possessor was the sole
individual 'holding' the truth. I meant it in the sense
that the Bhagavad Gita uses the phrase, or that Locke used
the phrase "possessed of truth," to mean that a person has a
particular understanding, or theory, which they personally
believe to be a 'truth.'
If this misunderstanding led from my poor construction,
please accept my apologies.
-- Steve Slatin
--- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, Lee Love wrote:
>
> On 8/6/07, claystevslat wrote:
>
> The most obvious logical fallacy in relativism is that
> relativism, by definition, proposes the absolute, relativism. So
it
> negates itself.
| |
|
