James Wright wrote:
>I think I can understand why David has such
>difficulty with Richard. Someone else alluded to David accepting
>Objectivism as his "religion", giving examples of how accepting the Three
>Principles as valid leads to certain conclusions.
David not only has difficulty with Richard, but with the entire list! He
claims that rational thinking will prevail on the internet. So far he has
failed miserably.
Three Principles (or Four Principles, or three axioms, or whatever, who
cares...)
lead to certain conclusions.
[...]
>Richard seems to be holding forth that there are understandings (Level 3
>and beyond?) which either exist independently or separately from the
>tenets of Objectivism. He seems to have no problem with Objectivism
>existing, although it's explanations of certain phenomena (propagation of
>memes) have gaps or inaccuracies in them from his point of view.
>My question for you, David, is : do you allow for the possibility of
>understandings that exist either independently or separately from
>Objectivism, that may have equal validity for describing objective
>reality? Or is Objectivism the only possible model / method / philosophy
>/ approach to validly perceive objective reality?
>Your answer will tell us quite a bit.
On one side we have three axioms: (1) reality exists, (2) I am conscious of
it, (3) A is A. On the other side we have "meme-space flexing on the fly"
(with the recent
"turning word" encouragement to put yourself in a very tough situation),
"getting more out of life" with fine cognac and fine cigars, and MUCH, MUCH
MORE to come in the TNT temple.
Of course, the truth *must be* somewhere in the middle.
Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa
tad@teta.ai http://www.teta.ai (604) 985-4159