> If by "experientially", you mean *humanistically*
...the set [experience] encompasses, but is not limited to the set [humyn experience]
...hey hermit, am I getting the hang of this at all?
and define this
> according to human error (as opposed to logic)
...reliance on the exclusivity of logic as an indicator of either truth, or knowledge is, well, silly.
Though our point of departure is,
> more accurately, that I do not believe in error, chaos, or "will"
...hmmm. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "error" in this context. I suppose you have a right not to believe in chaos, but I definitely don't understand your equation of will with force.
...this I didn't get at all.
> I understand that in oppressive situations, order tends to imply
> SOMEONE ELSE'S order so that freedom tends to imply freedom FROM
> order. But, I use *freedom* as in "freedom from chance".
...Margaret Atwood [whom I don't actually like very much but I keep
agreeing with her] elucidated "freedoms from" and "freedoms to" in
her novel "The Handmaids Tale" - which is instructive in several
respects. I have no beef at all with order. I do see a need for both
sorts of freedom though.
...but I can't understand the concept of "freedom from chance"
> allows that both freedom and order are in line with one's OWN
> awareness (and that this awareness is founded upon a necessary
...what is this necessary truth to which you allude? ...I can accede to freedom and order being coexistant.
> I side WITH those who represent order but only to the degree that
> the order they represent does not involve force. And I side AGAINST
> those who use the potential for force which is inherent in
> orderliness as an excuse to justify forced error (as if the power of
> those who represent order justifies the will of those who represent
...just a query, how do you express your dissent to the use of force if you deny the validity of will?