“…And by the way you do have a knack for altering what I have said. I have not said what you have written, above.” - SE
Well, I guess I could just repeat the exact words you use in the same order however without rephrasing your words to how I interpret them, and then asking you, I never know if actual communication has occurred. So, yes, I do alter your words. And, with the current example, I guess I don’t see what the problem is “…I just try to keep the reins on mine as tight as possible and reduce the number of entities I engage with to a sensible minimum.” – SE “So, the criteria you use is ‘sensibility’…along with simplicity, correct?...” – OM You used the term ‘sensible’ to modify ‘minimum’…this after saying you reduce the number of entities you engage with..so, it still seems to me that you somehow arrive at some ‘sensible’ minimum…and, in this case, I see said reduction to a minimum as simplification. Some would use the term Ockham’s Razor to describe the principle behind what you suggest is your method. Oh, and I have no problem at all with you not wishing to accept revelation in argumentation. This is fine with me. I do not embrace faith nor revelation either. Or, at least not in the common understanding of the phrase. When it comes to ‘self-validation’, perhaps I do not understand what you mean. Are you willing to share your view? I checked the phrase in a list of fallacies and didn’t find it. It isn’t in many dictionaries. And, god google comes up with software…perhaps you can shed a light on your epistemology, OK? Thanks. On Sep 7, 1:36 pm, Simon Ewins <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/9/7 ornamentalmind <[email protected]>: > > > > > So, the criteria you use is ‘sensibility’…along with simplicity, > > correct? And, you arrived at this juncture how?...other than using the > > very thing (thinking) that you are arguing about, no? > > No. > > And by the way you do have a knack for altering what I have said. I > have not said what you have written, above. > > Revelation from God is self-validating and should not be used in an > argument to support the existence, will or purpose of God. Very > simple. The reason has nothing to do with this solipsistic nonsense > that you are trying to twist it into. > > Any self-validating experience is invalid as an argument to support > the idea that is self-validated. If you want to carry on vis a vis > solipsistic ideas, feel free, I have been there, done that and don't > find it interesting enough to do again. > > If you think (and I get the impression that you do) that > self-validating experiences are to be fairly used in discussions I > have no interest in changing your mind, I simply will continue to > discount them in my own discussions. > > Fair enough? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" 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/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
