ian,
:"(1) Feyerabend: " “All methodologies have their limitations and the only
'rule' that survives is ‘anything goes.’” (Against Method 5)
This speaks for itself: "anything goes." "
as already noted...cole porter. "in olden days a glimpse of stocking.."
and society tells u this is self-evident.
:"“Man is the measure of all
things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not,
that they are not."
self evident as well. it's in the world "measure".
as noted a couple of days ago about the definition of "meter"--a thing that
does not exist except as it can be related to a thought of distance, or an
observed light wave.
:"coins which have
lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins."
yeah...well. nietzsche needed to deconstruct a sentence or two as well...
his point would cohere if he said "coins which have lost their metal, and
retain only their faces" like... hmmm...american coins.,,about which currently
there is meaningful discussion as to whether the sotry told in the past will
prevail in the face of observable events like mortages, debt, oil, etc, and
become functionally deconstructed.
:"and the "will to power" (The Will to
Power, # 552) thereby making arbitrary force the determiner of truth. There
is no Archimedean standpoint from which we can decide what is true in and of
itself. "
right, and therefore the One invented darwin, because reality is dynamic, not
archimedean.
:"He conflates the "will to truth" and the "will to power" (The Will to
Power, # 552) thereby making arbitrary force the determiner of truth."
ok. and?? i mean really...and? what is power???
it isn;t that many weeks ago that i asked around here what the heck the word
"power" was supposed to mean. lemme find a concrete Authoritative situationally
Correct usage: "as your faith is so shall your power be. this is the balance.
this is the balance. this is the balance."
so, when i have the infallible Master conflating faith (a reasonable single
word indicating "will to truth" with "will to power"---because if there wasn;t
a will to power being addressed, what >>>>rational<<< point would there be in
the Master offering the statement----what's ur problem with freddie?
:"arbitrary force"
"force" >>cannot<< be arbitrary. the >>decision<< to apply force is always
done by someone arbiting a set of relative occurences.
the decision to place the chopsticks to the dim sum, the child to bed or the
bomb to the city are thence >>always<< applications of force resulting from an
arbitration.
and "arbitray force" become linguistic sleight of hand for "i don't agree."
:"4) Lyotard: ": “I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives.”
good definition. so...war isa good idea...why?
heros are "masculine"....why???"
:"this suffers self-referentiality problems since the statement
requires that we show incredulity towards Lyotard's own epistemological
metanarrative."
nope no problem at all. lyotard is a putz. and?? done. next?
:"He also objects to all binary oppositions (true/untrue etc)
forgetting that he has a binary opposition of his own - binary/non-binary."
nope. that's an interpretation. i will be credulous and believe he objects to
all binary oppositions.. and refer u to sAq in re feet/scorpions/ evil. which
Comment in my reading says that relative to the foot the scorpion can be
>>named<< evil, whilst the scorpion is utterly virtuous.
:" Derrida's own statement -
and thus make it impossible to know what he actually means. We cannot know
the truth about this. "
\ yes. so vyou and derrida agree. you cannnot know the truth of a statement.
you are left with havuing to make a choice and >>>act<<<--introduce motion as
the resolver.
:"or in Rorty's
case, “with the desire for solidarity with that community."
i refer you to the Master's and Guardian's comments about the "truth" inherent
in an lsa decision and the "correct" response to such decisions.
:"f truth is relative to the knower and context, and each knower is different
and thus, so is each context, then there are as many truths as there are
knowers. "
i refer you to lights of Guidance wherein one may find a Cite from an
infalllible UHJ regarding the relationship between what is known to It, rate of
change, and what It infallibly decides.
:"Notice as well the reference to eternal
truth, another concept that does not work with relativism. "
sure it does. u add the word "apprehendible."
now. to resove the issue u add the idea that maybe the system was Designed,
and the De-Sign-er Is Aware of the system limitation, and Interjected an
Interface,
john 1:1, 2...and u test that Theo-ry
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail")
is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be
confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The
information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts
or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
__________________________________________________
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:[email protected]
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
