Straight out of the textbook, haha adrian
Joseph Polanik wrote: > 1. The Axiomatic System and its Domain of Application > > an axiomatic system is not itself about anything; so, facts neither > support nor challenge it; and, consequently, the system says nothing > about anything. > > when an axiomatic system is linked to some other domain which it is said > to model, facts about that domain become relevant. > > here's how it works. I'll start with one of my axioms: (x)(-Nx) > > that's it. you have no idea what it's about because I haven't specified > the domain to which I'm applying this axiom; and, since I have not yet > specified what 'N' represents, you have no idea what I'm saying about > that domain. > > of course, you know just from logic that I'm saying 'for any x that is x > is not 'N'. you also know the following equivalence: > > (x)(-Nx) <-> -(Ex)(Nx) > > now you know how to falsify my claim (once you find out what domain it > applies to and which facts become pertinent): you show (Ex)(Nx) --- you > prove that there is an x that is N. > > okay, now I'll link this axiom to the domain to which I apply it, the > language of psycho-philosophical inquiry. it is the definition of 'is'. > > where N = not nothing, (x)(-Nx) translates into 'for any x that is, x is > not nothing'. this is logically equivalent to the right side; -(Ex)(Nx) > translates into 'it is not the case that there is an x such that x is > nothing'. > > now that I've linked the axiom to its domain of application, you know > how facts are relevant. you can only falsify my axiom by demonstrating > (Ex)(Nx) --- by presenting an x that is, but which is nothing. > > good luck with that. > > 2. Comparison with the Metanomski Axiom of Awareness, MAA > > [Georges, until you tell us what you've named your axiom, I'm calling it > the Metanomski Axiom of Awareness or MAA.] > > your axiom is: all elements of the human universe are relative, > excepting awareness, its utmost absolute foundation. > > this is not stated in a very abstract manner, so it is difficult to > distinguish the axiom from the domain of application; and, to see when > facts are relevant to the issue at hand: whether the axiom adequately > describes the domain to which it allegedly applies. > > 3. Confronting DoubleSpeak > > now, Georges, let us confront the doublespeak (using 'doublespeak' in > the classic orwellian sense). > > on the one hand you say that one of the ways in which to challenge an > axiomatic system is to use facts to show that it is false (ie that it > does not adequately describe its domain of application). however, when > presented with a fact that challenges your system you have avoided > rising to the challenge. instead you have > > * invented a rule that your viewpoint can only be challenged from inside > itself. > > this rule is obviously bogus; and, is adopted by astrologers and other > pseudo scientists to avoid having to deal with skeptical scientific > challenges. > > * you have 'defined' the claimed fact 'I am self-aware' as tautologous. > > you do no explain the basis for this judgement. you identified two uses > of 'tautology', one from logic and one from rhetoric, but decline to say > which you are using. furthermore, since a tautology is true under all > circumstances, one would normally think that your axiomatic system would > not have to commodate itself to a tautology; but, you seem to be saying > that your axiom doesn't have to be consistent with a tautology. > > * you have 'defined' the awareness described by 'I am self-aware' as > 'non-thematic'. > > here, again, you refuse to confront the facts. the fact is that you > admit that awareness of a tree is thematic awareness; but, that > awareness of self as subject while simultaneously aware of that same > tree --- somehow that self-awareness is non-thematic. > > how is that possible? you've declined to answer. > > * you have defended your axiomatic system by introducing facts > > you've indicated that awareness is necessarily thematic but without > showing where that conclusion came from. is it a separate axiom? is it a > deduction from the MAA. if so, would you please present the derivation? > is this a conclusion based on facts? > > you point to Bachelard in defense of your claim that awareness is > necessarily thematic. but, you've additted that Bachelard didn't say > that. he just spoke about states of awareness that we both recognize as > thematic awareness. > > so it is still up to you --- if you are citing Bachelard's observations > as evidence --- to show how Bachelard's discussion of thematic awareness > proves that all awareness is necessarily thematic. > > instead, you've tried to obfuscate the issue by claiming I need to show > that Bachelard claimed that non-thematic awareness is possible. that's > ridiculous. I'm not claiming that self-awareness is non-thematic. you > are. > > so, it's up to you to show how self-awareness is non-thematic. is that a > separate axiom or is that a deduction from the MAA? > > Joe > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
