Not a prob. If you want to add author credit (doesn't matter to me, though), I go by "Gonz".
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > Wow, excellent work! I think I agree 100% with your explanation. I might > quibble slightly with your choice of terminology, but that depends on whom > wer'e targeting this towards. > > I plan to post this on RC.org under an appropriate title, such as "A > Radical Centrist Vision of Truth and Progress." Sound good? > > -- Ernie P. > > On Jan 11, 2012, at 2:05 PM, Mike Gonzalez wrote: > > So this is where we are... I think: > > 1a) There are objective facts that exist independent of human experience > 1b) These objective facts, when taken collectively, contain all of > existence > 1c) A fact is a piece of incontrovertible truth which exists at a specific > point in time, or over a length of time > 2) Under no circumstances can humans be perfect (or optimized) > 3) As a result, humans can't have perfect knowledge of facts > > Result: No claim by humans of objective truth can be correct. Humans can > only have working rules. > > 1) Humans can't have perfect knowledge of facts > 2a) Humans can improve their situation by applying solutions based on > correct understanding of facts > 2b) The human situation is the current state of either a single person, a > group, or collective humanity > 3) As a result, humans can improve their situation, but their application > of solutions is imperfect > > Result: There is a distinction between "correct knowledge", which can help > humanity improve its situation, and "perfect knowledge", which is an > impossibility involving total understanding. > > 1) Humans can improve their situation, but their application of solutions > is imperfect > 2a) Humans can improve their situation through careful study and > application of innovation > 2b) Innovation is anything created or concocted by humans that exists > outside of nature > 3) As a result, careful study and application of innovations can improve > humanity's situation, though imperfectly > > Result: Broad (ideological, say) rules don't suffice in improving the > human situation. > > 1) Careful study and application of innovations can improve humanity's > situation, though imperfectly > 2) Even though facts don't change, our understanding of facts can change > 3) As a result, our imperfection in applying innovations is a reflection > of a lack of understanding > > Result: When we change our position, it's not an admission that we don't > think facts are absolute- it's that we were wrong. > > > Overall, we've: > > a) retained eternal objectivity, and removed objective truth from the > controlling hands of humans > b) removed human perfectibility from consideration (destroying communism), > yet protected things like transhumanism and futurism as incremental > enhancement > c) defended the ability of humanity to continue solving problems > d) wholesale destroyed broad "moral imperative" ideologies (socialism, > modern progressivism, evangelicalism), in favor of incrementalism > > > > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community < > [email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org > -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
