Hi Marsha,
On 11/28/11, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > Since patterns (truths) have no independent existence, I might agree that > there is no basis on which to call anything true. Good or bad? Sure, from > a static perspective, but not true. > > This might add something interesting to the discussion. It's an interesting > lecture by, a philosopher, a Professor Cahoone: > > >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sg-SGofRFo&feature=related Steve: You say that there is no basis to call anything true. What sort of a basis ought something have to warrant being called true? Why does "true" have to mean anything more than that a claim has held up against all objections that have been raised and that we have hope it will continue to stand up to objections raised in the future? How can a claim to truth be more adequate than to stand up to such scrutiny? To what else should such a claim need to be adequate other than our own human needs and interests? What non-human power could demand that our claims be thought of as something more than tools for human use? Best, Steve Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
