[ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth"
msd001 at gmail.com
Mon Oct 13 18:41:57 UTC 2008
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
>> I suggest there is no way to assume a root of reality any more
>> than it is possible to discuss the reality of an objective point of
> Can you give me any examples for what it *is* possible to
> discuss the reality of? I just want to make sure I understand
No - I cannot.
The context in which I wrote the original was that (I felt) Jef
repeatedly pigeonholed me as a "believer" in absolute anything. I
made the connection to "objective" reality and what I thought was
Jef's attempt to point to some kind of "root" in his tree analogy. We
are left with [?] each member in the conversation has their "inherent
subjectivity" - I think the thread trailed away once it became clear
there was no way to "win."
I reiterate: No; I am unable to provide examples. If the exercise is
to prove a class, then a series of object examples can illuminate the
class but never prove it completely. If other classes are meant to be
used inductively, they must either be a priori agreed upon or else
also proven by another method. I become discouraged when faced with
the idea that people truly care only about their own concerns. An
other scenario is that I'm having a solipsist argument where what I
perceive as agreement is a reflection of a desire for agreement
(arbitrarily relaxing the requirement for exactness to achieve it)
Either way, it seems a futile effort.
More information about the extropy-chat