A View of Relative Pluralism

“Consider what effects that might conceivably have practical bearings you conceive the objects of your (best possible liberty)conception to have. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the (best and highest possible)object(a priori arithmetic liberty).” The pragmatic maxim, C.S. Peirce plus my bolded additions...
{I'm piecing together some larger terminology now which I think will help in my future readings. I just read your blog the other day The Isomorphic Gates of Perception and think I understand what you are getting at. What do you mean by relative pluralism? I'm going to read your next blog when I get back from a break to the beach :)} A.
{“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer}

As to Schopenhauer, his quote is quite accurate, and he was a well respected philosopher, leaning quite heavily toward metaphysics, but that's fine. The third part "accepted as being self-evident", probably both of us would have a little trouble with, at the limits of. Though it is "self-evidently" true, often this truth can be "reified" or "petrified thinking"(in other words becoming incased in concrete fears instead of true arithmetic facts). By this I mean, the wrong self-evidence may be arrived at, as is far too often the case, but it is the truth of what societies do, as to turning beliefs to ideologies, dogmas and whatnot. Until we learn to apply "a priori soul arithmetic" to our egos and judgments, we'll be forever cast to the faults of false reasonings. "A Priori Arithmetic" is the old Greek words for fundamental math to correct our reasoning mistakes. They did it with the golden ration and the golden mean of, which can still be applied to all thinking, as I have roughly shown, in my latest posts. Until we learn to do this again, apply the truth of "best nature"(soul and spirit) and highest nature "arithmetics"(arithmetic intellect) to our perception and understanding processes, we'll remain trapped in the viscious circles of relative pluralism. We need to advance to eclectic understandings of the all in everything, yet truly differentiable, and re-integrable.

Relative pluralism, as I'm interpreting it, is as in opposition to eclectic truth(the first sees all views to have equal value, and the second sees only the views of value differentiation and integrations of true personal, social and liberty improvements, to have real value). At the turn of the 20th century all philosophy and general universal thinking entered a period of crises, with the complexities of Maxwell's electro-magnetism, Planck's quantum heat ideas and Einstein's relativity. Due to this extreme complexity entering the universal psyche of all thought, psychology and philosophy, most people became very confused of how to interpret the newly found complexities of science, physics, maths, psychologies, spiritualisms, whatever, in relations to the new discoveries... This is where relative pluralism first showed its confused face, and throughout the 20th century increased the mis-interpretations of the basic scientific ideas with soft-science and science interpretations of most of our intellectual domain. Relative pluralism, or more precisely, many of the truth relativists, think all truth is relative, when nothing could be further from the truth. They all think Einstein and other scientists actually think that all thought is relative, when in fact, Einstein's relativity is actually the physical "law of invariance" of the speed of light in vacuum(and measurements of). It's just scientists always present initial ideas as theories, in case they may be wrong. Einstein was not wrong, but the initial theory having such a powerful dynamic change of the physical understandings of science, "The Theory of Relativity"stuck(sadly so, almost everywhere___yet false, except to relative measurements). Both Einstein and Bohr warned the world, as early as the twenties, they were mis-interpreting the science, but the psychologists and philosophers didn't listen, and most still haven't. That's why I've always taken all my studies back before the era of confusion, to find the real foundational truths. This usually requires "pre-twenties" ideas. And of course, that's why I concentrate on Peirce's work, as he's the last true a priori, eclectic, arithmetic philosopher with his near completely true scientific pragmatism(at least, he's the best so far, right to the present). His philosophy also allows for all metaphysics, religious views and spiritualisms, as well as all the sciences. A priori is simply the thinking potential we're all born with, whether of soul, judgment, reason, logic or whatever. It's our basic thinking perception. It's also arithmetical, or it couldn't produce geometric representations, and dimensionalisms of the real world, thus its mechanics is a basic a priori potential arithmetic(spirit and science, at the highest arithmetic potentials, are isomorphically identical___The best, greatest and highest is always the best greatest and highest___No matter the source___Just an a priori truth).

So, relative pluralism(much of feminism, etc.) is mixed-up and mis-interpreted eclecticism, as used to exist from Socrates on, falsely pushed into anti-truths, anti-psychologies and anti-philosophical systems and bogus ideologies. No truth can be relative. If it were, it wouldn't be truth___Truth is truth(always a priori arithmetically provable, whether spirit or physical universe___Think about it, always big and small concepts of your own ideas___that's a priori arithmetic, unless just a simple non-arithmetical truth statement like "my truck is black"). It may change over time, but that's entirely different(It's still true truth, for our time). So the eclectic ideas of invariant fundamental truths actually do exist. Though the invariable truths may be smaller in number than the variable (variable, not relative) truths, they are the more powerful framework, that holds the whole world together. These invariant truths are mainly the physical laws of nature(really, basically the actions of nature, and the base geo-mechanics of our universe___particle/wave actions), discovered by the scientists of math, since the Euclidean Geometers of the "Golden Ratio", and "Golden Mean", to Archimedes’ "Center of Mass", to Newton’s "Laws of Motion" on into Einstein's "Laws of Mass"___The invariant laws, on and on, etc, etc, creating and maintaining the true spiritual/physical eclectic nature of our world. All these laws are isomorphic(meaning they arithmetically map) to all the world's pragmatic(meaning physical and useful psychological actions) realities of Ol' Mother Earth, and her people, of all walks of life.

Hope that helps. If it's too confusing, just ask for further clarifications. BTW, there are some good pdf's on sound feminist philosophy, but I can't put my finger on them right now, but it's about "Standpoint(global/personal viewpoint of) Epistemology"(they also admit the philosophic dilemma of it). It's much better than the feminists coming from relative pluralism, and all the prejudice that entails.