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

[C. G. Estabrook]

  If your assertion is culturally dependent and relative, then in principle 
there can be statements to which it does not apply - i.e., absolutes.

If your assertion is not culturally dependent and relative, then it itself is an 
absolute (perhaps the only one).

Either way, we're forced to deal with absolutes.


On 8/31/10 8:19 PM, Laurie Solomon wrote:
> 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 <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 31, 2010 4:57 PM
> *To:* Laurie Solomon <mailto:ls1000 at live.com>
> *Cc:* peace-discuss at anti-war.net <mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net> ; 
> davegreen48 at yahoo.com <mailto:davegreen48 at yahoo.com> ; Carl Estabrook AWARE 
> <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu> ; Morton K. Brussel <mailto:brussel at illinois.edu> ; 
> Stuart Levy <mailto:slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu> ; Bill Strutz 
> <mailto:bill.strutz at gmail.com> ; rbkutz at gmail.com <mailto:rbkutz at gmail.com> ; 
> Ron Szoke <mailto:r-szoke at illinois.edu> ; MartyneConrad Wetzel 
> <mailto:mc-wetzel at hotmail.com> ; dharley at illinois.edu 
> <mailto:dharley at illinois.edu> ; Jenifer Cartwright <mailto:jencart7 at yahoo.com> 
> ; Karen Medina <mailto:kmedina67 at gmail.com>
> *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 <mailto: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/20100831/95634a3b/attachment.html>