Ha, yeah. Originally, I had only meant to compare two (potentially hallucinatory) modalities that I find myself humoring. On the one hand, an arborescent ordering of my world (universal grammar of belief), and on the other something more like a nomadic exploration of a rhizome. As a sort of side comment to this, I mentioned a weak rejection of Peircean truth relative to such a universal grammar of belief (UGB). There were also caveats, I am talking about belief in a narrow sense. For these purposes, I claim beliefs to be things that we discover via performance (belief competence) and not the kind of things discoverable by reflecting on hypotheticals. Additionally, along the lines of Chomsky's universal grammar, UGBs are arbitrarily given by the historical accident of biology. This last point opens the door to a reasonable assumption that any two people will ultimately disagree on what they are capable of believing. What I find interesting in this characterization is that apt-beliefs (roughly, beliefs that one has and ought to have) may be part of the commons in the short run, but are likely to be ruled out in the long run, and so will be found false by a Peircean determination of truth. Again, the idea is that even if one can profit in the world by putting their apt-belief to work, these beliefs will generally be non-transferrable exactly because they will not be part of another's UGB. I personally have no emotional investment in these ideas (making no claim even in a broader sense to believe them), but the logic of it all seemed curious enough to post about.
-- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
