To Marcus and Group,
If there are multiple points of view of any event, which one of the many can
be true, or are all true in some respect?
If every view point is contaminated by default belief/delusion how can we
decide which is true?
Consensus or democracy seems appealing but it is a very
I was just pointing some others at this article and I found an author's
reprint collection with links to commentary:
http://internal.psychology.illinois.edu/~acimpian/reprints/
As the Economist understates: All this raises interesting and awkward
questions.
-- rec --
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at
On Tue, 2015-01-27 at 15:25 -0600, Vladimyr Burachynsky wrote:
The litigants have no right to enforce their contrived rules on the judges,
or do they?
Yes, it is just a struggle for power. There are no rules.
Marcus
FRIAM
I agree with Marcus that the litigants do have the right to enforce
their contrived rules on the judges (as usual, the scare quotes
foreshadow my rhetoric). I think this is mostly because there is no
line between judge and litigant. We can see this quite obviously with
the rampant
Well said, Vladimyr.
Frank
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
wimber...@gmail.com wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu
Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Vladimyr
Burachynsky
One either knows the answer (to whatever question) or one doesn't. You
actually know that God exists, or you don't know. Pretending that you
know when you don't is...well...pretense. Accepting that you don't know
when you don't and keeping an open mind usually leads to less self delusion.
I
FWIW, Charles Peirce has a rather novel solution to this problem. First, he
writes as if there are such things as facts ... things that are true not
matter what you, or I, or any other person might think. So, up to that
point he seems like a straight-on dualist: reality is distinct from human
