Pluralistic Relativism

I'm not really a huge fan of Wilbur, like many New Age teachers he preaches a 'generous' universalism that's actually quite totalitarian.

@ Serious. Wilber is discussing why postmodern deconstruction taken to the extreme is unsustainable. He is setting up his own constructive philosophy which he understands to be beyond postmodernism. Here's a review of the book with pictures. http://www.wisdompage.com/toerevw.html

I don't buy the idea that the statement invalidates itself. "change is the only constant" springs to mind. the idea is not that constructed ideas cannot be absolute in their realm, but that universally held claims are not valid. the claim that all knowledge is relative itself in in the context of hermeneutics and would not be true in other contexts. for example, in the context of a circle there are always 360 degrees. in the context of christian experience, christ's resurrection is part of our view of history, but from the academic field of history, a unique event like the resurrection is ahistorical and cannot be evaluated.

I would love to know more of the context behind this quote. I can't tell if I want to call him a donkey or applaud him for his audacity.

@jhimm To me it is a postulate. If I have a "theory about belief" that theory is a kind of belief, a "belief about beliefs". If my theory/statement/belief cannot stand up to itself, then that theory/statement/belief could be incorrect or lacking. Why do you say that not all beliefs should also apply to themselves?

that doesn't answer the question i asked. i'm asking you to defend the assertion that a statement about beliefs is itself a belief. and to try to keep you on target i am not defending pluralistic relativism as it is not necessarily a doctrine to which i personally adhere. i just want to know if you can defend your assertion.

@jhimm Using Wilber's "Boomeritis", see "http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/boomeritis/endnotes/ch9.cfm/" point 4, quoting (paraphrasing?) Lisa Powell "The standard response of pluralists, when faced with the performative contradiction, is to claim that pluralism is a self-contradiction only if pluralists are implicitly assumed to be pursuing a universal agenda (so that you can in fact have a noncontradictory pluralism). But if that is the case, and pluralists are not in fact arguing for a universal validity to their claims, then those claims are not binding on me or on you, and thus we can ignore them. Their claims have no validity, by their own tortured account. "

should i take your levity to mean you don't have a real answer to the question? it was a genuine question. you made an assertion without citation. back it up.

@jhimm "says who?" Well, under Pluralistic Relativism I can say it is a belief. If you want it to be a kind of elephant, I guess that would also work.

Tripp are you working on your own theory of everything?

"If Pluralistic Relativism is a statement about beliefs then it is a belief" says who?

Without a link to the article, I'm just shooting blind. However my philosophy teacher in college said "Any statement about 'belief' is a belief in itself". If Pluralistic Relativism is a statement about beliefs then it is a belief that must stand up against itself. So what Wilber said is true; Pluralistic Relativism, as a belief, is a universal (non-contextual) truth that applies to all people equality.

who the heck is ken wilbur and what is his affiliation? (is that a modernist question for ya ;))

it baffles me that people with such insufficient comprehension skills actually get book deals to publish things that overly simplistic. proof that books are nothing more than consumer entertainment, no matter what part of the Dewey system they fall under.