Fred, There's shallow and there's deep, with a range between. Profs like everybody else come in unique and shallow flavours. Reading bibliographies, once a favorite pastime, that split into review journal writers, hod carriers and busy people while they all manfuly ignored the mavericks and unlettered. Do tell me when you find a complete bibliography. I'm well aware that the less well we know whatever the more likely we are to stereotype it as the unexamined. It's all a bit like Governments try to fit the public into 'all the same', suitable for the workbench and all that. It's academics who appear fond of categorisation of which I am not at all fond. The map is not the territory, nor does a certificate of any kind, or one's IQ, guarantee competence, which is true for plumbers too. On Karl Jaspers forum, I was once in, I was compared to Heidegger and Ernst von Glaserfeld called me deep, Oh well. I've been called all sorts of things which told me more about the writer than myself. What else is new? Nor is there such a thing as an unbiased person. I know the feeling of being unable to summarise a book or paper. You have not yet got over the enthusiasm of writing it.
""The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself." I could spend half an hour deconstructing that one. Where else does one live but encumbered with a body? Unless you want to talk demonic possession. "“There is no salvation in becoming adapted to a world which is crazy.” Henry Miller. That one I can agree with, some, enough to make the weight of agreement over 50/50. The one which has it that one's public facade - now how many of those do i use? - equate with the person ought to be banned [ about 15/85] but that cannot be applied to minds. There's no magic wand to houseclean a mind. Then there's actors not necessarily confined to the entertainment industry. Some of them turn into conmen. Dutch has a word "raak" which suggests a comment is on target, How close to the centre it does not say. Cannot find an equivalent in English. Dutch is not into "true" etc. "Thousands of geniuses live and die undiscovered - either by themselves or by others. Mark Twain. That's Bang on, over 70%. ""“True genius resides in the capacity for evaluation of uncertain, hazardous, and conflicting information.” W, Churchill. So is that one. I don't know who or what it's hazardous to. And him with a repuation for being an unbridled pighead. He, like Einstein was thought a dumb student. Some of us have big minds that take time to fill up. I find the entire game of being precise ludicrous. NOT 'wrong', on certain occasions one had better be very precise, like killing a wild pig. I like the ones who reply to a question with; "Now do you mean..." and ramble on for half an hour before they begin to speak for themselves, which takes more highly qualified time. I cannot stand the ones who jump into a first available POV and get dogmatic. And that includes some professors. Sorry for the "expressly stated" it does not exist, nor is possible. ""“Insane people are always sure that they are fine. It is only the sane people who are willing to admit that they are crazy.” Nora Ephron THERE'S a paradox for you. I would not be so crazy as to disambiguate it into a polarised option. That, in case you failed to notice, is an anti-double bind. adrian. fred wrote: > Sam: I'll try to get to your posts soon. > > adrian: You wrote "the assumptions PROFs never mention and which I > like hunting down until I discovered there's too dang many of them." > Again, I encourage you to read my book. I mentioned that I'm a college > prof only to give an indication of who I am. You shouldn't even think > of yourself as a critical thinker if you want to lump all college > profs into a single category. Do you seriously think that all profs, > unlike other people, fail to mention assumptions? Do you believe that > ALL women argue in the same way? ALL Asians? > > George: You wrote "I find there some loose talk about beliefs, but > nothing referring to "Existence" or "Uncertainty"" > That's what the book is about. Sorry, I can't summarize in a few > sentences. > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
