tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post4765436411709512775..comments2024-03-28T20:04:20.286-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: Osama bin Laden Pleased that Obama Bin' Leadin' (3.14.09)Gagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger84125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-78351067767368061292008-02-17T19:27:00.000-08:002008-02-17T19:27:00.000-08:00This is two days late, but it's important enough t...This is two days late, but it's important enough to write anyway.<BR/><BR/><I>"One can grasp profoundly, i.e. intuitively, only that which one loves. Love is the vital element of profound knowledge, intuitive knowledge." If you have ever wondered why true evil -- nazi evil, Islamist evil -- is so impenetrable, it is because the normal person obviously cannot love evil: "Evil is therefore unknowable in its essence. One can understand it only at a distance, as an observer of its phenomenology."</I><BR/><BR/>There is another way to know evil, and perhaps even to understand it. Chesteron hit the mark when he wrote that one didn't want to be ruled by foreigners any more than one wanted one's house to burn down: because one couldn't begin to list the things he would miss.<BR/><BR/>But Chesterton couldn't have made that observation without having at least tried to make that list, and the person who loves the things he relies on in his world, and has some measure of gratitude for them, is also aware that they can be taken away. And knowing that they can be taken away makes evil conceivable, because evil <I>does</I> take those things away.<BR/><BR/>From a credit card, without which one cannot rent a car or sleep in decent lodging, to the "ceremony of innocence," when one realizes that things can be taken away the possibility of evil is real.<BR/><BR/>It remains to decide which are most important. "Are you willing to give up all that you are in order to keep all that you have?" (G'Kar, on <I>Babylon 5</I>)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-52240141884371444862008-02-17T09:30:00.000-08:002008-02-17T09:30:00.000-08:00Oops... JWM, Walt, Nomo... probably the wiser cour...Oops... JWM, Walt, Nomo... probably the wiser course, sorry, I should have refreshed beforing posting.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-84433282845124329692008-02-17T09:28:00.000-08:002008-02-17T09:28:00.000-08:00xi said "I've spent many years studying[thanks to ...xi said "I've spent many years studying[thanks to generous grants and subsidies] studying secular philosophy and intellectual history but I grew up talking and studying with priests and theologians and was originally trained in Christian theology and comparative religions.”<BR/><BR/>Whatever your private or subsidized ‘training’ may have been, what they succeeded in instilling in you is the ideal of a labcoated, clipboard carrying quantifier of facts, but it was not an Education. Whatever the form and content of your training, that idea that true knowledge is quantitative, not qualitative, and true only to the extent that it can be repeated… that if it cannot be quantified, then it is invalid and not worthy of attention, that results from the line of philosophical thought descending form Descartes, Rousseau, Kant and Hegel. From that source, the ideal of Reason ceased to be a tool of Wisdom, and began to be a method of analysis alone, and the hierarchy of thought available to those adhering to it, has been ever flattening ever since.<BR/><BR/>“They suffer from excessive vagueness and ambiguity, resulting in them being, quite literally, senseless.”<BR/><BR/>No, they reflect concepts further up the conceptual hierarchy than you are familiar with, the problems you’re experiencing are more related to Intellectual Vertigo, than epistemic zero values. The higher the concept, the more general its properties and the more lower level concepts and instances it applies to. You dismissed Julies analogy, but it is in fact very likely apt for you. We know nothing about you, other than your apparent training, but we do know you by your words, what they attempt to grasp and at the same time convey.<BR/><BR/>Your attempts at deriving quantified truths are perhaps applicable to Aristotle’s treatises on logic, or biology, but they are wholly inappropriate to apply to the plays of Aeschylus and Sophocles or to Plato’s dialogs, let alone something of the nature of One Cosmos. What your words actually convey is your lack of understanding of the importance of context and a fundamental lack of understanding of not only the principles of epistemology, but their application.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you missed this in your training, from Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, Book 1, Chapter 3,<BR/>“…We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and with premisses of the same kind to reach conclusions that are no better. In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; <I><B>for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs.</B></I>"<BR/><BR/>You’d do far better, gain far more, if you set your ‘training’ aside, and went back to the basics – Aristotle’s Ethics and Metaphysics would be a good place to start.<BR/><BR/>wv:doamad - hmm... ominousVan Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-89350908259950955202008-02-17T08:16:00.000-08:002008-02-17T08:16:00.000-08:00Xi - Jesus said to Pilate, "Everyone who is of the...Xi - Jesus said to Pilate, "Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice." Pilate replied, "What is truth?", then walked away from any answer. He didn't want one. Nor do you. You put a million words between you and the Word. That will only work for so long. Keep at it though.NoMohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01100042056270224683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-89351790837588989552008-02-17T08:03:00.000-08:002008-02-17T08:03:00.000-08:00Smoov -My point, exactly!Smoov -<BR/><BR/>My point, <I>exactly!</I>walthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01388218390016612051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-37666697042571869082008-02-17T07:52:00.000-08:002008-02-17T07:52:00.000-08:00xi:OK, you win. Now go away.Please.JWMxi:<BR/>OK, you win.<BR/> Now go away.<BR/>Please.<BR/><BR/>JWMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-72783656136243316362008-02-17T07:40:00.000-08:002008-02-17T07:40:00.000-08:00Now, Xi described Cousin Dupree's statement as "si...<I>Now, Xi described Cousin Dupree's statement as "simply an invalid, authoritarian type of non-epistemology."<BR/><BR/>I'm betting that Dupree has never been described exactly that way before!</I><BR/><BR/>To my knowledge Dupree has been described as a "simply a substance abusing, welfare-dependent <I>invalid</I>" <B>by</B> authoritarians (i.e., the police, social workers, et al), however they made no mention that I can recall of his epistemological position in the crime blotter...Stephen Macdonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13474300559219020772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-76039656940044436422008-02-17T07:12:00.000-08:002008-02-17T07:12:00.000-08:00Xi:“you seem to think that you can engage in a kin...Xi:<BR/><BR/>“you seem to think that you can engage in a kind private or semi-private language with its own rules which you make up as you go along.”<BR/><BR/>I was going to say something, but I don't think you understand yourself.<BR/><BR/>“our usage of language is governed by the same necessities and realities as everyone else.”<BR/><BR/>Like this. What kind of dogma is this? This supposes that everyone shares the same reality and, therefore, has the same necessities. Surely you don't think that the world (space-time) is flat, and that everyone shares the same disclosure of referents, therefore using and the same syntax (implies a triadic relationship between the signifier (what comes to mind), referent (object), and the signified (the word)) to talk about reality? Well, that's how you come across. One of the important discoveries of structuralism was that we human beings inhabit different "world-spaces," which if applied to a discipline like semiotics (study of deep structure of language), translates into a sort of semiotic pluralism, where the referent, e.g., an atom as pure object (not the philosophical atom), could not exist, did not exist for a culture, or person, without the necessary cognitive structure of something like Piaget's formal operations or higher. The signified, atom—the word—would have no meaning to someone several hundred years ago for the very reason that the referent, much less the signified (what comes to mind, the idea), was yet to be disclosed by the formop or higher cognitive structure. We could certainly say that the atom maybe existed, or rather, subsisted, as an intrinsic feature of within the ground unconscious, and therefore, the cosmos in its primordial totality, but even that would border an overly flirtatious relationship to unknowable facts, O. <BR/><BR/><BR/>“This is absurd and demonstrably false.”<BR/><BR/>Please correct me missing something, as may be in the dark. Bring me to light.<BR/><BR/>“Your claim of it being a spiritual exercise is a pretty poor cop out, not to mention its contradicted by the fact that you say that you and your 'coons' already 'know' the things you are writing, which implies that you and they do in fact 'know' them;”<BR/><BR/>If what I said above is even remotely true, we could propose that One Cosmos is in essence a point within space-time where common cognitive-structure, well, I’d rather say pneuma-structures, conglomerate together around the common goal of “fleshing out” what has already been disclosed to them--remember, referents may exist in the overall gestalt of reality, but features certainly aren’t differentiated, hence the self-evidence (soph-evidence) of what lies behind the syntax. I mean, just because the American founders thought that “We hold these truths to be “self-evident,” that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” doesn’t mean that they had to prove the improvable to anyone to whom it is not “self-evident.” It’s a useless endeavor. Heraclitus was right when he said "We must know that war (polemos) is common to all and strife is justice, and that all things come into being through strife necessarily." War is necessary, cultural or otherwise, to bridge the schisms of ignorance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-58080614137408201042008-02-17T04:38:00.000-08:002008-02-17T04:38:00.000-08:00Now, Xi described Cousin Dupree's statement as "si...Now, Xi described Cousin Dupree's statement as "simply an invalid, authoritarian type of non-epistemology."<BR/><BR/>I'm betting that Dupree has <I>never</I> been described exactly that way before!walthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01388218390016612051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-76370195542934247152008-02-17T00:49:00.000-08:002008-02-17T00:49:00.000-08:00As far as I know, God has never been formally prov...As far as I know, God has never been formally proven or falsified, yet at OneCosmos God is held as a <I>premise</I>. Shouldn't that in itself have you running for the hills and not wasting your time here? But you're drawn here like scratching an itch.<BR/><BR/>You're either a lefty or an atheist/agnostic, or maybe there's some kind of Stockholm syndrome involved. Whatever the case may be, the root of your bitchiness is deeper than just problems with "truth conditions".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-49876410243312658122008-02-17T00:22:00.000-08:002008-02-17T00:22:00.000-08:00Xi said,"Below the sub-atomic paradigm of entangle...Xi said,<BR/>"Below the sub-atomic paradigm of entanglement dynamics lies a field of static ratios which define a set of bound variables which are asymmetric but engage inter-dependent Being. Those on the political Right under-assimilate a sub-set of those variables and replace them with the negation of that sub-set all the while valuing such impoverished, and backward, knowledge of their own lack of essences, which is in reality a kind of empty set thinking posing at virtue."<BR/><BR/>Are you kidding me? At first I actually thought that you had taken an example of Bob's writing from the archive and were going to make a point, as I read further, I realized you hadn't.<BR/>You're right, that is gibberish, but if you think that bears ANY resemblance to what Bob writes, you Sir are a fucking MORON!<BR/>What is your purpose here? You've already proven your ignorance and are wasting a perfectly good Saturday night trying to convince people that what they already understand, isn't. You're wasting both your time and Blogger bandwidth. And to think that my tax money has been going for generous grants and subsidies to "educate" this fool. Sheeesh.<BR/>GAZE.<BR/><BR/>P.S. Those last few sentences have been the wisest you've read in the last 20 years. Even if you are too dumb to realize it. While you may be able to dazzle your colleagues, you'll find no sycophants here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-22582483437536353732008-02-16T23:44:00.000-08:002008-02-16T23:44:00.000-08:00Whah dah yah mean, non-existent page!Whah dah yah mean, non-existent page!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-80663207034229716742008-02-16T23:08:00.000-08:002008-02-16T23:08:00.000-08:00riv-coc- Clearly you have no idea what I'm talking...riv-coc- Clearly you have no idea what I'm talking about. I, just as clearly, do. Its pretty basic linguistics/philosophy of language. Buy a few books on the subject or take a few courses on it if you want to understand it. Its not difficult.<BR/><BR/>petey- sorry, but you are writing in the form of propositions. you seem to think that you can engage in a kind private or semi-private language with its own rules which you make up as you go along. This is absurd and demonstrably false. Your usage of language is governed by the same necessities and realities as everyone else. Your claim of it being a spiritual exercise is a pretty poor cop out, not to mention its contradicted by the fact that you say that you and your 'coons' already 'know' the things you are writing, which implies that you and they do in fact 'know' them; an issue subject to epistemic investigation, even if you want to pretend it isn't. When you talk about things such as 'the left' or 'male and female' and especially when you write about existing persons like zinn or chomsky[or anyone else] you are very much indeed attempting to assert things about how the world is. And you once again resort to your pathetic canard that 'my kind' simply fails to be able to understand your oracular wisdom. Even if others don't see through this phony obfuscation, your intellectual bankruptcy is apparent.<BR/><BR/>riv-coc- I wouldn't even attempt to 'explain the essence of God'. Only fools attempt the impossible.<BR/><BR/>jwm- this isn't about anything being to my satisfaction. Its about Bob's writing failing to meet objective standards for clarity and sense.<BR/><BR/>julie- please don't pretend I didn't understand your simplistic math analogy. I get it. You think that Bob is operating at some high level and I don't understand his oh so fancy jargon because I lack education in the basics that his intellectual system is based on. This simply doesn't pan out. I've spent many years studying[thanks to generous grants and subsidies] studying secular philosophy and intellectual history but I grew up talking and studying with priests and theologians and was originally trained in Christian theology and comparative religions. That you think there is some meaning in what he writes, and that you assume I miss it due to some lack of education is beside the point. Its not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact that his language is faulty. <BR/><BR/>consider this example:<BR/><BR/>"Below the sub-atomic paradigm of entanglement dynamics lies a field of static ratios which define a set of bound variables which are asymmetric but engage inter-dependent Being. Those on the political Right under-assimilate a sub-set of those variables and replace them with the negation of that sub-set all the while valuing such impoverished, and backward, knowledge of their own lack of essences, which is in reality a kind of empty set thinking posing at virtue."<BR/><BR/>I could go on and on writing such gibberish, throwing in a lot more ad hoc attacks on certain groups, and be sure that a lot of ignorant folks who don't like the people I am attacking would agree with me and thank me for putting into words things 'they already knew but couldn't elucidate'.<BR/><BR/>But their agreement would be irrelevant to whether or not it had any sense to it, which it obviously doesn't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-37284594107259914072008-02-16T22:35:00.000-08:002008-02-16T22:35:00.000-08:00xi said “…name-dropping a whole bunch of names and...xi said “…name-dropping a whole bunch of names and terms, with little to no explanation…"<BR/><BR/>Not name dropping, but admittedly, taking a shortcut, hoping to spare the regulars another rerun. I didn't say you were, I said you sound like a grad student, and I also said that I could be wrong, but my guess is, that based upon a couple of years of experience here with people who come in with the same tired old phrasing, sounding remarkably similar to you, they will have proven themselves to have either no interest in truth beyond their wackademic ideologies, or else will endlessly disapprove of OC's inability to meet their idea of what it should be.<BR/><BR/> If I'm wrong about you, honestly, I'm thrilled and eager to be proven wrong, but I gotta tell you, from your comments and observations so far, I'm not too hopeful. I'm sure you feel your insights are fresh and original, but I assure you that we've seen your same comments and objections and observations over and over and over again. It is clearly visible to the longtimers hear, we recognize your style, before the end of your first sentence.<BR/><BR/>Go through the Knowa's Archive, you'll find answers to all your 'critiques' - those you've made, and several of the ones you're getting ready to make.<BR/><BR/>But seriously, what it's going to come down to is that what you're looking for, what you are expecting, isn't going to be found here. You will eventually leave, quite certain we weren't able to refute you, and we will enjoy 'your' absence... until the next one returns again to enlighten us as to how what we enjoy fails to meet their standards.<BR/><BR/>We'll try to hold up under the shame of it.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-90709117612676101102008-02-16T22:32:00.000-08:002008-02-16T22:32:00.000-08:00"Even leftists have sometimes useful ideas".Can yo..."Even leftists have sometimes useful ideas".<BR/><BR/>Can you name one?debasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13546940741042023260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-85083160832785927582008-02-16T21:55:00.000-08:002008-02-16T21:55:00.000-08:00"He doesn't offer propositions which can even be e..."He doesn't offer propositions which can even be evaluated. They suffer from excessive vagueness and ambiguity, resulting in them being, quite literally, senseless."<BR/><BR/>Actually, Xi, for most of us regulars Bob's language makes perfect sense. Going back to my math analogy, which you apparently didn't comprehend: One who does not have a solid grasp of basic math (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division), is not likely to find an algebraic equation to be reasonable, logical or comprehensible, much less trigonometry or calculus. You find Bob's terminology to be beyond your grasp; this does not mean it is meaningless, it simply means it is above your comprehension. <BR/><BR/>By your own admission you've been here (at least, I think that's what you meant when you said you'd been to Hoarhey's non-existent page) four times. Most of us have been here a few <I>hundred</I>. If a pre-algebra student walked into a trigonometry class and insisted the instructor made no sense, the student would rightly be told he wasn't ready for the material. He might also be laughed out of the classroom, if he were a jerk about it. However, if such a student were truly interested in learning the material and was respectful, he might be allowed to sit quietly at the back of the room and listen until his comprehension approached that of the other students. But the student would have an awful lot of catching up to do, and would in truth be better served by taking some lower-level classes before tackling the heavy stuff.juliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15975754287030568726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-29717792000916138372008-02-16T21:28:00.000-08:002008-02-16T21:28:00.000-08:00xi:All this vague stuff about epistemology makes m...xi:<BR/>All this vague stuff about epistemology makes my eyes glaze over. How about this. Give us an example of a statement that Bob made that you would like to see either proven or disproven. What do you want proved to your satisfaction? What do you want to disprove to uor satifaction? Are you looking for a sound argument for the existence of God? Do you want a precise definition of God's will? Proof positive that Moses didn't just think up the ten commandents all by himself?<BR/>Do you want proof, a modus ponens argument that those random seeming blobs of color in the stereogram will resolve into a three dimensional image? Some people can stare at the pattern all day long and never see the star. Be precise, and maybe we'll have something to talk about. Right now I'm tired, and I'm going to turn in.<BR/>I'll check back tomorrow.<BR/>wv: ewbxqbab. Exactly!<BR/>JWMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-21872631256955378972008-02-16T20:52:00.000-08:002008-02-16T20:52:00.000-08:00Also, xi. How do you explain the essence of God, w...Also, xi. How do you explain the essence of God, which is beyond knowledge? Shall we accuse God of being without evaluable sense or truth conditions? <BR/><BR/>The psalmist writes, "Why do the heathen rage?" <BR/><BR/>Why, indeed.Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-61546811287570853232008-02-16T20:50:00.000-08:002008-02-16T20:50:00.000-08:00Xi:Bob does not offer propositions to be evaluated...Xi:<BR/><BR/>Bob does not offer propositions to be evaluated or accepted. Rather, he speaks only of what every full-blooded Coon already already knows, but perhaps hasn't formulated consciously. These are spiritual exercises for vertical initiates, not arguments to try to convince people such as yourself of anything. The secret protects itself anyway, and there's not a thing Bob can do about that particular law. In short, Bob's writing is not intended for you or your kind, so you're wasting your time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-68261699166339129002008-02-16T20:49:00.000-08:002008-02-16T20:49:00.000-08:00My original critique[which has yet to be even remo...<I>My original critique[which has yet to be even remotely addressed, and has instead been met with obfuscation] is that Bob writes statements that have the form of assertions but fail to actually contain evaluable sense and/or truth conditions.</I><BR/><BR/>Honestly? I don't have the slightest clue as to what you mean. <BR/><BR/><I>Do you?</I>Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-38812849943912119162008-02-16T20:35:00.000-08:002008-02-16T20:35:00.000-08:00cous-dupree- your 'you simply can't understand our...cous-dupree- your 'you simply can't understand our truth' is simply an invalid, authoritarian type of non-epistemology. This was my initial critique of Bob's epistemological method, or lack thereof. He doesn't offer propositions which can even be evaluated. They suffer from excessive vagueness and ambiguity, resulting in them being, quite literally, senseless. The only possible method for assessing their truth or falsity is to simply believe, without support, that Bob is correct since there is no way to understand with any precision[and precision is necessary for understanding] what he is or isn't asserting. This isn't a property of my deficient mind, but of the very language he uses.<BR/><BR/>van- first, in clear violation of the principle of charity[a basic norm of sound discourse] you assume, without any evidence, that I have no interest in truth or Truth. This is an incorrect assumption on your part.<BR/><BR/>Then you go on to make more assumptions than I can count about what I believe[again, with no evidence] in relation to a whole slew of issues[and pretty much everything you assumed I believe or what would 'tick me off' doesn't apply to me] that I not only didn't bring up but that aren't directly relevant. You assume I am a grad student[which I'm not] but then go on to pull the quintessential grad student move of name-dropping a whole bunch of names and terms, with little to no explanation, to give me[or other readers] the impression that you know a great deal. I'm not saying you do or don't, but what you wrote gave me no grounds to evaluate either way.<BR/><BR/>Also, I have never claimed, nor would I[since its invalid methodology] that I am smarter than anyone. Its not a question of intelligence, its a question of clarity and meaning. Trying to simply get me to go away[though I may do so] displays both insecurity that your views can sustain thorough critique and a authoritarian nature that dislikes being brought into question.<BR/><BR/>My original critique[which has yet to be even remotely addressed, and has instead been met with obfuscation] is that Bob writes statements that have the form of assertions but fail to actually contain evaluable sense and/or truth conditions. If Bob was speaking only of subjective states of mind, this might be a functional method[though still fraught will problems when addressed to a de-contextualized readership], but since he pretends to give an analysis not only of society or humanity, but also of the entire cosmos, his method simply fails in every conceivable way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-21122387012834211512008-02-16T20:02:00.000-08:002008-02-16T20:02:00.000-08:00coons can be such bitches. hell yeah.coons can be such bitches. hell yeah.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-7057719251035151532008-02-16T20:01:00.000-08:002008-02-16T20:01:00.000-08:00He certainly has had to have had some kind of conv...He certainly has had to have had some kind of conviction, Van, to be in the prison he's in.Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-86797679323647071892008-02-16T19:45:00.000-08:002008-02-16T19:45:00.000-08:00"You clearly don't know anything about Derrida and..."You clearly don't know anything about Derrida and Foucault if you think ..."<BR/><BR/>Sigh. How many times have we been down this road 'coon's? Well, it's not like I didn't see it coming I guess. I understand more than I care to understand of both, and more importantly, I've got a fair understanding of what gave rise to them and their extended and estranged family.<BR/><BR/>Now, I didn't realize what I said was that complicated… or maybe I just wasn’t clear… either way, since you sound like a grad student, I'll take it real slow. The proposition,<BR/><BR/>"...we’ve found that the fine folks such as yourself who speak of ‘truth conditions’ and ‘truth value’, like Derrida and Foucault, generally have neither an interest, willingness nor even an ability to recognize the truth, let alone Truth."<BR/><BR/>breaks down like this,<BR/><BR/>Set A - "fine folks such as yourself who speak of ‘truth conditions’ and ‘truth value’",<BR/>Set B - "Derrida and Foucault"<BR/>Union "...generally have neither an interest, willingness nor even an ability to recognize the truth, let alone Truth."<BR/><BR/>I could be wrong, but my guess is that you'll have some tedious belief in materialist and deterministic explanations for life, man, consciousness, etc, or an even more boring conviction (that always cracks me up, 'conviction') that reason has no true relation to reality. Either of which, by way of attenuated and modified truths (truth value, truth condition, relative value, equally valid, etc) succeed only in reducing the idea of Truth to material ‘facts’ or isolated ‘instances’, thereby discarding the proper conception of Truth, altogether.<BR/><BR/>Here, let me really tick you off: Derrida, Foucault, Heidiegger, Dewey, and for fun I'll even toss in Beckett and Jackson Pollack... all of your post-modernists, post-structuralists, linguistic analysts, dadaist's and ad hominem infinitim (yeah, I know), though they make nice shows of being at odds, are all actually but variations on a theme propounded at length (and by 'at length', I mean <I>leeeennnnggggthhhhh-thuh</I> by Kant (not to cut Hegel out or ignore their inspiration in Rousseau or Des...but... I'm working on that brevity thing), and one of his key tools to create all of you moonbats was his sleight of hand antics with 'analytic truths' vs 'synthytic truths', by which he successfully destroyed any meaningful conception of truth. Kant is the modern source of 'refined' logic, or scientific thought over judgment, and as such is the source of it's current state of disease. It also leads to the oh so tedious practice of eternal grad students such as yourself parading about their analytic and synthetic demonstrations to any bound and gagged audience they can find.<BR/><BR/>In short, give me good ol’ Aristotelian (or even Platonist) Rhetoric, over ‘real analysis’ any day of the week. And no, we don’t buy your “… attempting to engage you in discourse…” you want to engage in stilted and self flattering anal-lit-tic exercises in semantics and word play with no regard to Truth whatsoever, only anemic autopsies of ‘truth-conditions’. <BR/><BR/>You are no doubt much, much smarter than we, we are not worthy, so please please (me) spare us, and move on.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-528877681896438472008-02-16T18:31:00.000-08:002008-02-16T18:31:00.000-08:00King James Bible-"Let him know, that he which conv...King James Bible-<BR/>"<I>Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins</I>."<BR/><BR/>A worthy goal coons?<BR/><BR/>Xi<BR/>My mind is still coarse and willing to "wash your feet," so to speak.<BR/><BR/>Maybe I can be of some help.<BR/>The roommates at the place I call home might get pissed at me for bringing you home but, the OC ain't my blog.<BR/><BR/>Hit my name and jump in at the ECTN.<BR/><BR/>I must ask you to please keep the wording as simple as you can cause I'm seriously challenged in the vocabulary department.The fewer the words and concepts I have to research the better.Dougmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08468871451814828157noreply@blogger.com