[Peace-discuss] Corn Festival -- RE: Sweet Corn Fest Fri & Sat!

[Laurie Solomon]

Cute comment but a valid point.  The assertion is itself reflexively culturally dependent and bound and hence relative.  While I assert it as a working premise from which to analyze and deconstruct the opposing position or positions and for that purpose hold it as a tentative universal or absolute, I fully realize that is is but only another possibility in a world of multiple realities, which itself can be open to question and treated as problematic.  I do not do it here and tend not to do it often in other situations since the possibility that I am using as a working premise is not the dominant  establishment view in the work-a-day world and is always being challenged and called into question as problematic by those who support the dominant viewpoint whenever it is brought up so there is no need for me to do it myself.  The dominant Western ontology and epistemology as well as derivative philosophy of science is grounded in a positivist and logical positivist tradition.  What I am suggesting is also based on a Western tradition of thought coming out of a Phenomenological ontology and epistemology along with its derivative philosophy of science (although it does have or take on other non-Western forms in non-Western cultural traditions).  In some circles, my position has been called "Ethnomethodology."


From: C. G. Estabrook 
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 4:57 PM
To: Laurie Solomon 
Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net ; davegreen48 at yahoo.com ; Carl Estabrook AWARE ; Morton K. Brussel ; Stuart Levy ; Bill Strutz ; rbkutz at gmail.com ; Ron Szoke ; MartyneConrad Wetzel ; dharley at illinois.edu ; Jenifer Cartwright ; Karen Medina 
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Corn Festival -- RE: Sweet Corn Fest Fri & Sat!


On 8/31/10 1:37 PM, Laurie Solomon wrote: 
  ...valid standards that you suggest for deciding the validity of arguments, facts, effectiveness, and usefulness are defined by and within, have meaningfulness and significance within, and are acceptable and valid within the context and parameters of a given system of thought and that  systems of thought are themselves grounded in and bounded to philosophical positions which are culturally dependent and relative. 

Does this assertion "have meaningfulness and significance within - and is acceptable and valid within - the context and parameters of a given system of thought [which is itself] grounded in and bounded to philosophical positions which are culturally dependent and relative"?  

Or is it absolute (in the sense of being true whatever else is true)?






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100831/b3b34909/attachment.html>