Yes, and no. Plato in "Meno" and his other dialogues mentions the universal,
definable as what is
in common to all members of a set. But it has a shortcoming. Aristotle defines
man as having broad,
flat nails, true and valid and typical enough but it is not exactly significant
like Huismann
defines man as "Homo Ludens" and so on around the mulberry bush. The deeper
snag is that
communication is a subset of art as a form of RE-present-ation which is mere
form and not
substantive. "form is emptiness and emptiness is form", Diamond Sutra; what
else is new? Compare
Rupert Sheldrake.
It varies by context as to which feature or trait leads or dominates in which
case to be a universal
it has to be poly-semantic or poly-semeiological, which was used before the
alphabetic and other
versions short of the fully pictorial as a representation of the actual thing.
But that gets rather
tricky when communicated outside a given distance short of holographic transfer
and stargate
gimmicks. As chief O'Brien keeps saying, that given a full complement of
detectors or sensors he can
find out the lot. It's tricky to talk bear and to have to drag along a real
bear, saying THAT is
what I am talking about. Not very meaningful unless, until and only iff you've
had real bear for
breakfast. Buckminster Fuller wanted conversation only in verbs but thats
impossible short of
knowing what a verb "means" from personal experience.
That concerns not just the representative or axiomatic but anything
which concerns larger or other
than local, which can be done as electronic transfer or fully telepathic and
all that which works
but is not fully reliable short of O'Brien's standard. Since the cognitive or
whatever horsepower of
understanding varies per person, that's the problem. It works fine for an
antheap but not much
beyond that level. It still works fine at the raw experience information
exchange called ecological
but that is unlikely to get much above the level called "nature". Then we get
into Toffler's Man,
the unfinished animal, and all that and what if man wants to fly and all that?
It's ok of course if you make like Metanomsky, kicking out everybody not
himself, stealing from
Heidegger, and calling the rest crap but that's a collectivitist, communicative
failure. So it's yes
if you talk idealistically possible because reality does fine, thank you, but
short of such
'perfection' the answer is no. So until we get the whole picture and nothing
short of that we just
keep trying along. Short of reaching for the mystical answer that all is mind
we're stuck in the
different horsepower shitbit. And, grin, Lucifer shows us it fails short of
even the angels. I mean
you cannot, sort of, survive on pictures of fried eggs.
Sorry mate you sound a shade on the naive side.
Adrian.
Sinhalaya wrote:
> Is there a possibility to develop a science not axiomatic?
> Galileo laid the foundation for the physics that can be written via
> mathematics. But axiomatic systems are older than that such as
> Geometry developed by Greeks.
>
>
>> Since Galileo and Descartes the whole science is axiomatic
>> and works exactly like that.
>
>
>
> On Oct 29, 7:16 pm, Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> --- On Wed, 10/29/08, Joseph Polanik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> you (Georges) have invented a rule that your viewpoint can only be
>> challenged from inside itself.
>> ===============
>> G:
>> This is not to discuss with Joe, nor to prevent him from
>> making a priceless ass of himself, but to keep the record
>> straight for people who could get muddled by his lies and
>> inanities.
>>
>> What I said is that axiomatic systems are by definition falsifiable by facts
>> through inductive inference via
>> their own theorems.
>>
>> Aether axiom has been falsified by MM fact by entirely
>> internal induction via its own theorems.
>>
>> Since Galileo and Descartes the whole science is axiomatic
>> and works exactly like that.
>>
>> Georges.
>> ===============
>> ===============
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
