http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/ is a good general paper. I end up like a character from Orwell who can only swear in disgust at the Double and News-speak PC crap. Insistence on generic frames of reference is legion and there is no bottom to it.
On 15 Jan, 22:07, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry - I didn't get a word of that. > > On Jan 15, 8:03 pm, "Serenity Smiles" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > I have an antidote perhaps, hit them with the sims computer game "mess with > > life" me Serenity Smiles, I always said the Caths want me dead and side with > > there behind looking creation!!! the (green emerald jewel on the cover, was > > a visualisation that belongs to me). > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > From: "chazwin" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 8:13 PM > > To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]> > > Subject: [epistemology 11184] Re: Second Enlightenment (S1,S2) > > > > Oh yeah! > > > The E is a pain in the academic butt! > > > Its a clear example of the theoretical tail waging the historical dog. > > > What was once a "war on religion" has become a cosy political correct > > > relativism club that lets in the Christians. > > > It's a bit of a sore point at the moment as I have to finish 5,000 > > > words by Monday on it. > > > > On Jan 14, 12:57 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Georges must have switched on more than a few light bulbs Chaz. > > > >> On 6 Jan, 15:07, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > It's all very interesting but was there any such thing as a first > > >> > enlightenment? > > > >> > On Dec 30 2009, 6:21 pm, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > ========== > > >> > > Reminder: > > > >> > > The present thread is destined to discuss the rationality of the > > >> > > Second Enlightenment as well as to inquire into the sources of > > >> > > the irrational manipulation of masses and to look for remediation. > > >> > > Its basic structure is: > > > >> > > X1. Scientific Revolution > > >> > > X2. Ontology > > >> > > X3. Ideology > > >> > > X4. Social awareness > > >> > > X5. Establishment > > > >> > > with X=F/S respectively for the first/second enlightenment. > > >> > > We start by the first enlightenment as guidance to the formulation > > >> > > of the second and warning of errors to be avoided. > > >> > > ============ = > > >> > > Originally the thread was meant as a chain of posts, but proved much > > >> > > too voluminous and I upload it progressively to my site. > > >> > > The so far uploaded sections are: > > >> > > F1.Scientific Revolution and F2.Ontology of the first enlightenment > > >> > > inhttp://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/ESSAYS/second_enlightenment_F1_F... > > >> > > F3.Ideology of the first enlightenment > > >> > > inhttp://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/ESSAYS/second_enlightenment_F3.html > > >> > > F4.Social awareness and F5.Establishment of the first enlightenment > > >> > > inhttp://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/ESSAYS/second_enlightenment_F4_F... > > >> > > S1.Scientific Revolution and S2.Ontology of the second enlightenment > > >> > > inhttp://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/ESSAYS/second_enlightenment_S1_S... > > > >> > > 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.
-- 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.
