Hi Edwina,
I am no arbiter, but does this not contradict your assertions
about not attributing motive to others:
After all, with your perspective, you would
end up assuming that whatever anyone says is meant as the absolute
final truth - when, in reality,
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
You are confusing an individual comment [mine: "no individual can
categorically assert that their perspective IS the truth" ] with an
assertion that the comment expresses THE TRUTH. This is a logical
e
Edwina, List:
ET: Therefore, no individual can categorically assert that their
perspective IS the truth.
At first, this once again appears to be self-defeating; you, as an
individual, are categorically asserting that your perspective (on this
particular matter) is the truth. However ...
ET:
Jon, Edwina, List,
Edwina:
And from your post - I conclude that not merely 'absolute
precision' is impossible, but by that notion, absolute truth
is impossible since 'continuous variation subsists'. ..which
means - no final Truth.
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
I am not obliged to insert 'my view' self-reference phrases when I
am 'interpreting' someone's personal comments - and I DID insert a
self-reference with the phrase "I conclude'.
No- I'm not fo
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list
So-" human knowledge, ... consists of linguistically formulated
expectations submitted to critical discussion" [Popper. Objective
Knowledge, 66]
First, it is individuals who engage in critica
Edwina, List:
The denial of absolute truth is self-defeating; to assert that "absolute
truth is impossible" is to affirm an absolute truth. I also note for the
record that you did not preface that statement with any of the disclaimers
that you have been urging upon the rest of us.
In any case, o
Edwina, list,
Edwina wrote: "This doesn't mean relativism; it doesn't mean nominalism; it
means instead that our 'intellectual conceptions' must be offered as open
interpretations by one person, open to questions and different views and
not defined as 'the truth'."
But it *does*, at least to me
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
And from your post - I conclude that not merely 'absolute precision'
is impossible, but by that notion, absolute truth is impossible since
'continuous variation subsists'. ..which means - no final Truth
On 8/1/2018 4:47 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
each interpreting Quasi-mind is always in a different state
of Experiential Information from any other--including the same
Quasi-mind at a different time.
Yes. And following is a related quotation by Peirce:
The vague might be defined as that to
Gary F., List:
While continuing to ponder these matters, it occurred to me that the
Immediate Interpretant (Essential Information as the system of Signs) and
the Final Interpretant (Substantial Information as the absolute truth) are
basically constant for a given Sign. However, the Dynamic Interp
Gary F, List,
Thank you, Gary, yes it does (clarify).
The truth about Peirce is not always clearly to find, because he, as I think good philosophers do, corrected himself sometimes, e.g by replacing his former term "relation" for secondness with "reaction".
So, because Peirce lamentably was n
12 matches
Mail list logo
