Hi Antonio.
What you say boils down to:

A. Replace "Establishment" with "PITS' Practices, or policies".
Now, there was a Nazi Establishment derived from the Social Awareness
of the Weimar Republic. It had nothing to do with "PITS' practices",
else than such PITS as did not like it were sent to Dachau.
Our question how PITS may learn what they really wish and what they
can do about it has sense only within a given Establishment. PITS'
problems and attitude will be different in China, in Iran,
in the USA and in a kibbutz. That's why I'd rather keep
"Establishment" understood as clearly implying PITS' problems.

B.replace the "top down" or "deductive" structure
X1. Scientific Research and Knowledge,
X2. Ontology, derived from the previous,
X3. Ideology, derived from the previous
X4. Social Awareness, derived from the previous.
X5. Establishment, derived from the previous.
with
X5. Establishment, verifying
X4. Social Awareness, verifying
X3. Ideology, verifying
X2. Ontology, verifying
X1. Scientific Research and Knowledge
Now, I don't prefer one or the other, but clearly need both.
Deductive/Inductive scan with possible spiral successive approximation
is essential to rational logic, which we shall discuss in S2.
The entry is clearly deductive: you create a structure deductively and
verify it inductively. X2 may verify X1 only if X1 preceded and
allegedly derived X2.

That's why, I maintain my proposal to describe the first enlightenment
and agree on this description, as guidance for our real objective -
the second. PITS and their problems will become pertinent only
when reaching S4.Social Awareness and S5.Establishment(s) concurrent
with the second enlightenment.

In the meantime I described to the best of my knowledge F1, F2, F3
of the first enlightenment and am eager to see it discussed.

You say - and I fully agree - that Today's tragedy is, the X1. level of the (A)
approach is not occupied by the scientific authority, but by
the religious or political fundamentalists. But in our discussion we
are not yet "Today", but in 16th-18th century. That should prepare
us for Today which will come with S4, S5.

Cheers
Georges.

==========
Reminder:
The basic structure of the present thread is:
X1. Scientific Revolution
X2. Ontology
X3. Ideology
X4. Social awareness
X5. Establishment

with X=F/S respectively for the first/second enlightenment. Indeed,
we start by the first as guidance to the formulation of the second
and warning of errors to be avoided.
=============
The present post is limited to the step F3- Ideology of the first
enlightenment.

Ideology is the best known domain of the First
Enlightenment, due to its impact on subsequent revolutionary
events and changes of social and political structures.
However, chronology did not respect the foundations order:
Kant came too late for Voltaire, Diderot, Montesqieu and
Rousseau. Lacking consistent foundations, the ideology
reflects uncritically current controversies: its apparently
rational form and declarations conceal noumenal utopianism.
It radically detached itself from the Scientific Revolution
and its phenomenal principles.
However brilliantly Voltaire ridiculed Dogmatism, his
criticism was negative, without suggesting any substitute.
Diderot and the Encyclopedia advocated rather arbitrarily
the social utility and attacked tradition without formulating
any positive remedy. Montesquieu believed dogmatically that
all consisted of perpetual rules or laws and argued, not less
dogmatically, that England's constitutional monarchy was an
ideal model of society, that women were inferior and that the
essential inequality of people justified slavery.
Noumenalistic Utopia of Rousseau had the greatest and most
direct influence on the French Revolution.

Oblivious of its rational roots, the ideology of
the First Enlightenment slipped almost entirely into dogmatic
irrationality.
===========
Reaction of dogmatism.

Failing to eradicate dogmatism, first enlightenment collapsed
under its reactionary assaults which went on uninterrupted
till 19th century dominated by dogmatic obscurantism.

French revolution triggered by enlightenment's ideology
radically denied its roots replacing Rousseaus with
Robespierres.

Dogmatic reaction reached its apogee in "Great German
Idealism" starting with Fichte's concept of Romanticism.

While enlightened rationality sees reflection as interplay of
imagination and inference, romanticism ablated the latter, leaving
Reason standing on one imaginary, emotional leg.

Romanticism is known mainly as esthetic current praising
spontaneous improvisation, but in that aspect it had no
noticeable practical impact. It's true that romanticist
artists followed innovated rules, but they applied them as
meticulously as their predecessors. Chopin did not learn
his music from Fichte. He applied partially new, but not
less strict rules than Mozart or Bach and deemed that
good improvisation presupposes skill gained by years of
rigorous training. The same holds for Liszt, Tchaikovsky,
Pushkin, Mickiewicz, Byron, Delacroix, Gainsborough and all
romanticist artists.

Romanticism impacted principally the Socio-Political. Fichte,
the father of Romanticism, preached Nationalism and became
the flagship of Nazism. His famous student, Hegel, became,
with a bit of Engels' assistance, the prophet of Gulag empires.
All in all, about 200 million were romantically and idealistically
slaughtered and the underlying dogmatic fanaticism gets every
day stronger.

Georges.

X1. Scientific Research and Knowledge, which establishes:
X2. Ontology, which establishes:
X3. Ideology, which establishes:
X4. Social Awareness, which establishes:
X5. PITS' Practices, or policies.

X1. PITS practices, depending for verification on:
X2. Social Awareness, depending for verification on:
X3. Ideology, depending for verification on:
X4. Ontology, depending for verification on:
X5. Scientific Research and Knowledge.

 

NOTE: The present thread results from my discussion with Antonio.
Nevertheless, due to its IMO general interest I'll mail it also
to lists which don't count Antonio as member as well as to some individual addresses.

We have agreed with Antonio to structure our issue as follows
1. Fundamental Research, (or in our context Scientific Revolution)
2. Ideology
3. Social Awareness
4. Establishment

However, a step is clearly missing, to wit the ontology, without which
ideology hangs in the air.

Consequently, the structure will look:

X1. Scientific Revolution
X2. Ontology
X3. Ideology
X4. Social awareness
X5. Establishment

with X=F/S respectively for the first/second enlightenment. Indeed,
I propose to start by the first as guidance to the formulation of
the second and warning of errors to be avoided.

The present post is limited to the steps F1,F2 of the first
enlightenment.

=====
F1, the First Scientific Revolution is mainly due to
-Galileo: Relativity and axiomatic method restricting science to
deductive theories inductively verifiable by facts.
-Descartes: Subjective foundation of cognition and its fuzziness
(permanent doubt); algebraizing  of geometry which opened the way
to calculus and to Newton's Model.
-Newton: Calculus and Gravity Model.

F1 was based upon the following axioms:

F1A1.Mechanics is covariant among inertial referentials by Galilean
Transformation.

F1A2.Space and time are absolute and affine which leads to translative
Galilean Transformation and its additivity of speeds.

F1A3.Space has the discrete fabric of "billiard balls".

F1A4.Action and causality is local, reduced to neighboring "balls".

We shall see below that F2-ontology took over and completed those
axioms, which unfortunately led to paradoxes. However, F1 already
leads by itself to two famous "Newton's paradoxes":

NP1.Gravity acts at large distances which contradicts the
fabric of "billiard balls" and the principle of local action.

NP2.SPACE (distance) determines the Gravity Force, which does
not act in any way on SPACE, thus contradicting the principle
of action/reaction

The paradoxes falsified the axioms of absolute time-space and of
the naive, discrete "billiard ball" locality. Yet, they were not
dropped, but maintained as dogma, which paved the way to Aether
and to ill-founding of logic and mathematics.

Warning for S1-the second scientific revolution: check if its
axioms don't lead to falsifying contradictions and paradoxes.

=====
F2.
Ontology of the first enlightenment was formulated by Kant.
Instead of traditional empty speculations he chose the sincere,
bona fide attitude of deriving Ontology from the bedrock premise of
empirically verifiable science. However, no matter how rigorous
the inference, the conclusion is only as good as the
premise: from paradoxical science Kant rigorously derived
a paradoxical ontology. While his ontology lost for us all avail,
his method and attitude are excellent example and guidance for
those who, in our days, seek to understand the Second Enlightenment.
Example of sincerity, rigor and respect for Science. Guidance
resumed in "Sapere Aude", "Dare to Reason!".

Brief recall of Kant's axioms:

F2A1: necessary and universal science exists. (Cartesian fuzziness has
been skipped due to the general overwhelming enthusiasm about Newton's
model).

F2A2: Science is created by inductive inference.

F2A3: Only a priori inference is necessary and
universal.

F2A4: Induction a priori requires subjective representations
a priori (categories).

F2A5: Space and time are subjective categories.

Theorem F2T1, concluded from Axioms: Induction a priori is
possible, necessary and universal.

COMMENTS

F2A1: The First Scientific Revolution had culminated in Newton's
Model, whose rules and concepts were believed exact, necessary and universal. This unjustified belief underlay the F2A1, crucial for
Kant's system.

F2A2: We nearly agree with it: for us the inductive inference
"verifies" rather than "creates" science.

F2A3,F2A4,F2T1: We accept now only induction a posteriori.

F2A5: Kant's main objective and failure was to create the
"Transcendental Logic" with induction a priori in its center.
For this purpose F2A5 was a necessary addition to F2A1.

Kant's "Transcendental Logic" appears to us as a miscarried "prototype"
of Propositional Calculus. He failed due to missing mathematical
tools, mainly the Boole Algebra and to a basic confusion: He considered
only statements, or, as we would say "operands", but neglected the
operators. His 'Logic" was in fact just a classification of statements:

-Statements analytical a priori which we would call  deductive,

-Statements synthetical a posteriori which we would  call inductive,

-Statements synthetical a priori supposed to support the induction a
priori, unacceptable for us.

This "logic" did not support in any way the inference, which is the
very object and sense of logic.

Warning for S2-the ontology of the second enlightenment:
Ontology properly derived from science has itself to be scientific,
i.e. complete, axiomatic and falsifiable. It should not arbitrarily
reject science's axioms, like Kant rejected the cartesian fuzziness.
But it should not take them uncritically for granted as Kant did with
the absolute and billiard ball structured SPACE. And, most important,
it should ban noumenal phantasms such as Kant's categories.
And last but not least, the proper ontology should found a scientific
logic - empirically applicable and falsifiable.

Georges.

Dear Richard,
On the whole Hume is a creature of his time. For instance, he is equivocal about
Elizabeth. But when she is strong and/OR intelligent, he says so. However, for
his day and age, he says women are NECESSARY for intellectual conversations in
order to keep them civilized.

Death and Taxes,
Gary

.
Re: More and others
Posted by: "Georges Metanomski" Sat Dec 12, 2009 11:12 pm (PST)


--- On Sun, 12/13/09, Saicho@... <Saicho@...> wrote:

From: Saicho@... <Saicho@...>
Subject: [analytical- indicant- theory] More and others
To: analytical-indicant -theory@yahoogro ups.com
Date: Sunday, December 13, 2009, 12:59 AM

 

Richard:
Both
More and Erasmus enjoyed reading Lucian of Samosata, for his irreligious wit,
but for More, Lucian went a bit too far in certain things, such as his rejection
of immortality. More agreed with Lucian’s denunciation of superstition,
hypocrisy, pretence and vanity, but held to the rightness of the Church’s
dogma.  Clearly, More did not see such dogma as in any way a superstition. He
picked and chose among elements of the Bible and eschewed the Scholastics for
their silly endless queries into absurd religious possibilities, questions and
seeming paradoxes. And here is where I become amazed – amazed that More,
Erasmus and those of like mind in that era, could not see much of their own
belief as superstition.
 
GARY: The answer is easy and historically self-evident. THE DESTRUCTION OF THE
CHURCH IS THE DESTRUCTION OF SOCIETY, PERIOD. That is how they both viewed it
– though that is very broadly open to a numbers of very different
interpretations. More is relatively narrow compared to Erasmus. He did not mind
at all killing people for heresy. BUT! On several things, he bordered, in some
peoples’ eyes, as a heretic himself! UTOPIA is a very equivocal, even liberal
book. More never hesitated to say the Church needed thorough reforming, but he
did not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 
Erasmus was not only a dedicated and, at first, almost the only KNOWLEDGEABLE
humanist scholar [preceded by Valla and someone else whose name I cannot think
of right now] but a friendly contemporary of Reuchlin – together, luckily,
with Pope Leo X Medici almost Reuchlin’s ONLY friends -  who fought almost
single handedly against the destruction of Jewish books against a Christian
convert from Judaism, Peiferkorn, who said almost all Jewish books slandered
Christianity and needed to be burned, something Martin Luther shortly became all
in favor of in disappointment that the Jews did not convert after his new and
wondrous message of salvation.
Erasmus originally inspired the reform spirit of Luther, but they completely
fell out over predestination which I did not realize that Luther was such a
totally irrational fanatic about. Luther essentially dowsed Erasmus with his
schist in THE BONDAGE OF THE WILL and then turned around and wrote a
conciliatory letter to Erasmus. But Erasmus refused to consider him a friend
again, an extreme move for such a man.
That the destruction of society was the historical result of this hideousness
was serendipitously delayed because of the first Turkish siege of Vienna [not to
speak of Charles V sacking of Rome for two weeks in 1527 and taking Pope Clement
VII prisoner]. But in 1628 the lines were firmly drawn and the Thirty Wars War
broke out, killing two thirds of the population of Germany and strangely
allowing Cardinal Richelieu to ally himself with the Protestants, gaining the
POLITICAL unity of France [and why I need to find out about Gallicanism]. It is
a time of total political and social confusion and the opportunity for vultures.
But a lot of this happened evened even in Luther’s time – sometimes caused
by Luther like the destruction of the synagogues he explicitly advocated and his
support for the destruction of the Anabaptists [what IS an Anabaptist? Ref.
Thomas Munzer], and the savage suppression of the Peasants War [ref. Florian
Geyer, Friedrich
  Engels]. Luther was really into ‘savage’.  Just read Marius’ biography.
 
RICHARD: Are we more equipped today to profess our lack of superstition, and if
so in what way and why? 
 
GARY: Absolutely NOT! All abstractions are superstition. All words,
‘logical’ categories, should be thoroughly skeptisized whether ‘atheist’
or ‘theistic’. They really are just words, never reality – including
‘reality’. Although VERY inconvenient!
RICHARD: As regards the metaphysical and the psychological are we more
“advanced” than the Greek dramatists, More or Lucian?
GARY: Nothing is more ‘advanced’ than the Greek dramatists. You are going to
die. Everything you do and know is going to nothing, nothing whatsoever. All
effort is ultimately futile. ‘It don’t mean nothing, it don’t mean nothing
at all’ from HAMBURGER HILL. As Saint Paul said, ‘Eat, drink, and be merry,
for tomorrow you die!’ The quote is from a Greek poet. BUT THE ACTUAL CONTEXT
IN PAUL’S LETTER is extremely ambiguous which leads me to take seriously
Abraham Malherb’s and Troels Engberg-Pedersen’s conclusions that Paul was
heavily indebted to the Cynics, the Stoics, and the Epicureans [as well as
Cicero’s New Academics]. Part of the passage further on is quoted in the front
of Thomas Harris SILENCE OF THE LAMBS whom I have tried to show was heavily into
the Stoics. The real divisions between the philosophical schools was trivial
compared with what goes on today. [‘The silence of the Lambs’, the slaughter
of the new born
  Paschal lambs – during Passover? -by the priests of the Temple at the same
time Jesus, only in JOHN on Friday, is crucified – Doctor Hannibal Lecter
tries to get his mechanical Jesus Crufixion watch patented from jail/asylum but
the government turned it down]
 
RICHARD: Certainly we have deeper and broader vistas of belief [that most call
knowledge] than did the ancients, but our wars, our religions and our personal
fears and angst, not to mention our relationships with our fellow humans are
surely little different from those of the ancients or those of the
16th century.
GARY: The only difference is people are not PRESENTLY being LEGALLY burned at
the stake, although they are LEGALLY having the heads chopped of PRESENTLY!

RICHARD: In the USA, the “religious:” outnumber the admitted non-believers
by a ratio of at least 90/10. Most believe in ghosts; most believe in a life
hereafter; almost all believe in some kind of god and the devil; a growing
percentage believe in some kind of “end days.” Perhaps the degree of these
absurd beliefs has changed, but certainly not the number of those accepting
them.  There are plenty of brilliant men and women around who do not share
those beliefs, but they generally do not proselytize, or write widely read
treatises such as In Praise of Folly!.
GARY: Merely change the words you use and you are an atheist and a scientist!
What progress! Regardless, one is enslaved to abstractions taken as realities
and even the words I use to say this are abstractions!!!!!

 
RICHARD or GEORGES or the HOLY GHOST: I guess that the question I am asking is:
Why are all these brilliant men, who are on the edge of Renaissance
“enlightenment” not able to push open the door a bit further and let even
more light in?
GARY: Erasmus was accused of heresy for the slightest change in his translation
of the NEW TESTAMENT Latin, all FULLY supported by extensive scholarship. BUT
THAT DID NOT COUNT IN THE SLIGHTEST! He violated idiotic traditions!!!!!
 
GEORGES: What was it in More’s makeup that so convinced him of the verity of
the church’s dogma? I have the feeling that Erasmus was indeed an atheist, but
kept his powder dry relative to being beheaded for blatant heresy. 
GARY: Merely stating the correct translation of the Greek NEW TESTAMENT was
heresy! And becoming Protestant did not help. John Calvin burned Micheal
Servetus MD at the stake in Geneva for simply denying the Trinity, something
Erasmus gave negative support for, and something NOT even official DOGMA until
after Constantine’s Council of Nicea and not at all clearly defined THEN and
the ‘filiotheque’ issue connected to it still a MAJOR difference between the
Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. AND I DO NOT HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE
AT ALL AFTER YEARS OF READING ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Abstractions!!
Aaaaggggggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GEORGES: Gary, you or Jud might have more insights on this issue.
 

GEORGES:  That's why I work since 50 years on the Second Enlightenment and am
starting a popularizing thread about it in our lists. Hope you'll participate.
CheersGeorges
VOLTAIRE: ‘If God did not exist, you would have to invent Him!’ Robespierre
did!


Death and despair,
Gary

Re: RICHARD MARIUS
Posted by: "Saicho@..." Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:21 pm (PST)



Richard:
Hi Gary. I find Marius a most excellent writer and wonder if you have read
any of his fiction? [The Coming of Rain and Bound for the Promised Land.]
He is such a good writer that I suspect his fiction is also quite good.
Lately I have not been into fiction – only history and biography.
 
GARY: No fiction AT ALL except THE ALIENIST by Caleb Carr which I have fuzzed
out at 3 fourths of the way through the book. But you might be interested in
it.  Teddy Roosevelt is the reformist police commissioner of New York.
Caleb’s portrait is interesting enough to get me to buy the first of a 2
volume series [maybe more, all winning Pulitzer prizes] biography of him. You
have heard of the movie THE GANGS OF NEW YORK with a number of notable actors
and director but was based on a nonfiction history about “five corners”, the
Dead Rabbit Gang, the REAL Bowery Boys, etc. Jorge Luis Borges essay on the book
prefaces the newest editions. But THE ALIENIST covers a time, 1890s, after that
period, concentrates on the “new” detective techniques [fingerprinting not
yet accepted in court], psychological profiling in its infancy [the actual
“alienist”/ psychologist], and the utter depravity of the boy bordellos
whose owners fought a vicious no holds
  barred war while taking advantage of the massive corruption throughout New York
City administration. The Episcopal Church is stated as the main owner, the
Catholic Church in second place, of the horrible [utterly gross descriptions]
slum apartments, and J. P. Morgan a supporter of their interests [the
protagonists were warned NOT to look at his acne disfigured nose]. Lincoln
Steffens, the muckraker newsman, is a character often mentioned. Marius fiction
I have no interest in. He liked Faulkner and I no longer do at all.
 
RICHARD: I find his asides, if you can call them that, to be insightful if not
charming. He is so bloody smart and well read that he might be too often too
subtle for many.
GARY: Obermann, despite being a ‘believer’, is also brilliant, so Marius
raking Obermann over the coals is an intellectual feast in the Luther biography.
RICHARD: Also he steps aside at time to stick in a bit of history that needs
telling in juxtaposition with the story of More.
*****
It is too bad Marius has not written about Henry II. I am in the midst of
reading his life by Hume, Churchill and w. L. Warren. Of course the
Churchill only gives a small sketch, compared to both Warren and Hume. Hume
seems to occasionally have more specific information – I wonder where he gets
some of it?
GARY: Do you mean Henry II or Henry VIII? [context with More] Hume’s only
favorite monarch was Henry II – rational but ruthless objectives in his rule
[I just saw a glimpse again of Peter O’Toole in the LION IN WINTER. He does a
wonderful Henry II in old age and again the younger version in BECKETT: “Who
will rid me of this priest!!!!!!!!”], a decisive ruler, the kind of politician
Hume approves over someone foundering about with moral issues like the idiot
Henry VI or Charles I [whom Hume actually does a kindly portrayal of despite his
political stupidity]. And, yes, Hume, DOES have more information. My LIBERTY
FUND edition in 8 solid volumes has all the footnotes and appendixes of the last
edition Hume supervised through the press [leaving out, though, many footnotes
of earlier editions recording his changes of mind]. He was not only essentially
the first ‘scientific’ historian of England, but he read every available
document, inventory
  [you can find out exactly what a food storehouse of a noble of Henry VIIIs time
had – and other times], and every historical letter available to him [notably
the bitch Mary, Queen of Scots, another moral equivocator, “Should I or should
I not get rid of Elizabeth? After all I am the rightful CATHOLIC ruler!” –
“O, no! I never said that!” etc, etc.]. Hume is not like a lot of modern
historians who are out to pick at possible faults and find deceit and scandal in
broader narratives where fine tuned investigation is not now and never will be
possible [The Kennedys, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, General George Marshall]. He
did not have the opportunity, yes, but he did not have that temperament either,
and took correction and criticism with grace and gratitude [again, Mary bitch
queen of the Scots – after all, he does show she had tremendous provocation
from the bastard she was married to, and the good Christian John Knox whose
sermons denouncing
  her she was politically forced to listen to ].

RICHARD: The Essential Plato is edited by Alain De Botton. It is a huge
paper back of almost 1300 pages. I liked it because it has slightly oversized
fonts.

GARY: I am unfamiliar with it. Does it have the Laws? Who trnalates,
publishes it?

Richard:
Yes, it has the Laws; through Book VII – I do not know if there are any
more.. It is translated by Benjamin Jowett and published by the Quality
Paperback Club of New York. [never heard of them]


GARY: It is ALWAYS a good thing to have Jowett around! He had an almost
‘colloquial’ command of Greek and always read Herodotus in the original
without aids while on the train. I may even have a hardback of the same edition.
His introductions are worth reading.
 
Regards,
Gary

NOTE: The present thread results from my discussion with Antonio.
Nevertheless, due to its IMO general interest I'll mail it also
to lists which don't count Antonio as member as well as to some individual
addresses.

We have agreed with Antonio to structure our issue as follows
1. Fundamental Research, (or in our context Scientific Revolution)
2. Ideology
3. Social Awareness
4. Establishment

However, a step is clearly missing, to wit the ontology, without which
ideology hangs in the air.

Consequently, the structure will look:

X1. Scientific Revolution
X2. Ontology
X3. Ideology
X4. Social awareness
X5. Establishment

with X=F/S respectively for the first/second enlightenment. Indeed,
I propose to start by the first as guidance to the formulation of
the second and warning of errors to be avoided.

The present post is limited to the steps F1,F2 of the first
enlightenment.

=====
F1, the First Scientific Revolution is mainly due to
-Galileo: Relativity and axiomatic method restricting science to
deductive theories inductively verifiable by facts.
-Descartes: Subjective foundation of cognition and its fuzziness
(permanent doubt); algebraizing� of geometry which opened the way
to calculus and to Newton's Model.
-Newton: Calculus and Gravity Model.

F1 was based upon the following axioms:

F1A1.Mechanics is covariant among inertial referentials by Galilean
Transformation.

F1A2.Space and time are absolute and affine which leads to translative
Galilean Transformation and its additivity of speeds.

F1A3.Space has the discrete fabric of "billiard balls".

F1A4.Action and causality is local, reduced to neighboring "balls".

We shall see below that F2-ontology took over and completed those
axioms, which unfortunately led to paradoxes. However, F1 already
leads by itself to two famous "Newton's paradoxes":

NP1.Gravity acts at large distances which contradicts the
fabric of "billiard balls" and the principle of local action.

NP2.SPACE (distance) determines the Gravity Force, which does
not act in any way on SPACE, thus contradicting the principle
of action/reaction

The paradoxes falsified the axioms of absolute time-space and of
the naive, discrete "billiard ball" locality. Yet, they were not
dropped, but maintained as dogma, which paved the way to Aether
and to ill-founding of logic and mathematics.

Warning for S1-the second scientific revolution: check if its
axioms don't lead to falsifying contradictions and paradoxes.

=====
F2.
Ontology of the first enlightenment was formulated by Kant.
Instead of traditional empty speculations he chose the sincere,
bona fide attitude of deriving Ontology from the bedrock premise of
empirically verifiable science. However, no matter how rigorous
the inference, the conclusion is only as good as the
premise: from paradoxical science Kant rigorously derived
a paradoxical ontology. While his ontology lost for us all avail,
his method and attitude are excellent example and guidance for
those who, in our days, seek to understand the Second Enlightenment.
Example of sincerity, rigor and respect for Science. Guidance
resumed in "Sapere Aude", "Dare to Reason!".

Brief recall of Kant's axioms:

F2A1: necessary and universal science exists. (Cartesian fuzziness has
been skipped due to the general overwhelming enthusiasm about Newton's
model).

F2A2: Science is created by inductive inference.

F2A3: Only a priori inference is necessary and
universal.

F2A4: Induction a priori requires subjective representations
a priori (categories).

F2A5: Space and time are subjective categories.

Theorem F2T1, concluded from Axioms: Induction a priori is
possible, necessary and universal.

COMMENTS

F2A1: The First Scientific Revolution had culminated in Newton's
Model, whose rules and concepts were believed exact, necessary and universal.
This unjustified belief underlay the F2A1, crucial for
Kant's system.

F2A2: We nearly agree with it: for us the inductive inference
"verifies" rather than "creates" science.

F2A3,F2A4,F2T1: We accept now only induction a posteriori.

F2A5: Kant's main objective and failure was to create the
"Transcendental Logic" with induction a priori in its center.
For this purpose F2A5 was a necessary addition to F2A1.

Kant's "Transcendental Logic" appears to us as a miscarried "prototype"
of Propositional Calculus. He failed due to missing mathematical
tools, mainly the Boole Algebra and to a basic confusion: He considered
only statements, or, as we would say "operands", but neglected the
operators. His 'Logic" was in fact just a classification of statements:

-Statements analytical a priori which we would call� deductive,

-Statements synthetical a posteriori which we would� call inductive,

-Statements synthetical a priori supposed to support the induction a
priori, unacceptable for us.

This "logic" did not support in any way the inference, which is the
very object and sense of logic.

Warning for S2-the ontology of the second enlightenment:
Ontology properly derived from science has itself to be scientific,
i.e. complete, axiomatic and falsifiable. It should not arbitrarily
reject science's axioms, like Kant rejected the cartesian fuzziness.
But it should not take them uncritically for granted as Kant did with
the absolute and billiard ball structured SPACE. And, most important,
it should ban noumenal phantasms such as Kant's categories.
And last but not least, the proper ontology should found a scientific
logic - empirically applicable and falsifiable.

Georges.

Dear Richard and Jud, and Antonio if you are interested
 
RICHARD: Yes, the Thomas More book is by Richard Marius.
 
GARY: Richard Marius is a marvelous writer and an extremely perceptive and
thoroughly research scholar. You will find the chapter on the Hunne affair –
something Judd would be interested also – but Marius, being an atheist
outsider, does not witch hunt for hypocrisy, rather he tries to understand why
someone with such high morals standards would deliberately twist the truth. He
explains More’s point of view admirably in that the unity and respect for the
Church as truly “Catholic”, specifically a universal authority that unites
all men in fellowship. However, unfortunately, that can operate, as in the Hunne
case, like the community of believers in Islam where if you do not believe as I
do, I will cut your head off [I had not thought of the irony of that until I
wrote it]. But he was dedicated to reform from within in the Catholic Church
like Erasmus, like Erasmus was very sympathetic with the Eastern Orthodox Church
[unfortunately that is all I
  know in regards to More whereas, luckily, there is much more available to me
about Erasmus sympathy for the Eastern Church.
*********************************
That sympathy, I have now realized recently in my researches of More and
Erasmus, may well have contributed to Henry VIII’s [“defensor fides” as
Jud knows from his daily coins] split from Rome, and possibly the start of
“Gallicanism” in France with Francis I [his chief cardinal tried to get him
to follow Henry’s example but, I think wisely, Francis settled on a 3rd
course, make the French Church independent from Rome – but this is a confused
story as far as my research has gone since “Gallicanism may have started with
Philip the Fair of “Let us burn Templars!” [and steal their money] fame who
had the Pope literally prisoner in Avignon, and yet it was, I thought, the
‘super-catholic’ Louis XIV who clamped down extremely tightly on the
Catholic Church in France, a complete surprise to me [L’eglise, c’est moi!].
If you know more about this, please tell me because all I have are bits and
pieces that do not fit together whereas I
  know a fair amount about Henry VIII and the Anglican Church both from Hume and
Karl Marx!]. Henry was no intellectual slob and always had a reason for what he
did that was brilliantly correct for an autocratic tyrant. He wrote a pamplete
against Martin Luther [which convinced Erasmus to never leave the Catholic
Church] whereby the Pope awarded him the title “Defensor Fides”. But Henry
always and only operated by his own agenda. What do you think Jud?
Now Marius ALSO wrote a biography of Martin Luther that A] is not sympathetic at
all, but B] I think shows he truly understands the man with as much sympathy as
a perceptive intellectual atheist and purportedly neutral historian could
reasonably be expected to accomplish. Marius puts Luther into the real context
of the time where faith was losing ground very fast and death was either a
boogy-bear or the release from all your troubles and hardly anyone worried about
divine vengeance in the afterlife. In fact, he makes a good case Luther does not
believe in a literal hell, which made “justification by faith alone” not a
terror of hell but a terror of death which Marius demonstrates wonderfully and
utterly infuriated the great Protestant scholar Herman Oberman at the University
of Arizona. If you can learn more about the violent dispute between these two
scholars I would be grateful I think you would enjoy it!
 
RICHARD: The Essential Plato is edited by Alain De Botton. It is a huge paper
back of almost 1300 pages. I liked it because it has slightly oversized fonts.
 
GARY: I am unfamiliar with it. Does it have the Laws? Who trnalates, publishes
it?
 
Regards, Gary

I have just  written a book entitled:
CONNED WITH THE WIND
Obama's Climatic Hoax
with the motto:

In 1835 the story "The Emperor's New Clothes"
was published in Copenhagen.
In December 2009 the same Copenhagen welcomes
the Climate-Emperor Obama dressed up in wind
woven clothes, swearing to choke with them
the Global Warming.
Is there still a child left who'll dare
to say that the Emperor is naked?

Publisher Createspace
ISBN 1449917518

x=================

Je viens d'�crire un bouquin intitul�:
CONNED WITH THE WIND (Autant en arnaque le vent)
Obama's Climatic Hoax (Canular climatique d'Obama)
avec la devise:

En 1835 le conte "Les Habits neufs de l'Empereur"
fut publi� � Copenhague.
En decembre 2009 la m�me Copenhague honore
le Clima-Empereur Obama affubl� des habits
tiss�s du vent, dont il jure d'�touffer
l'Echauffement Climatique.
Reste-t-il encore un enfant qui osera dire
que l'Empereur est nu?

Editeur Createspace
ISBN 1449917518

Georges Metanomski

Cecil Rhodes
Posted by: "Saicho@..."
Wed Dec�9,�2009 9:45�pm (PST)


I picked up three books: the life of Thomas More, all of Plato in one volume
*****************
Dear Richard,
1. Is the life of Thomas More by Richard Marius?
2.� Is the one volume Plato edited by Edith Hamilton/Princeton or published by
Hackett?
�
�
�
RICHARD: and Cecil Rhodes, a biography. All I know about Rhodes is that he was a
diamond magnate and founded the Rhodes scholarship.
Dear Richard,
Rhodes was the archetypal British imperialist. I know of no one who even
compares to him unless you want to consider the Stroganoffs and Siberia. The
explosion of colonialism in all of South Africa is due to him. Was the British
coming a blessing or a curse? Even the Indians I know are very ambiguous about
that. He brought railroads as well and I am sure initiated the drive to create a
Cairo to Cape Town route which the Germans inconveniently interrupted at the
time . . . for a short time.� Was he not also into the gold? The Boers were
either unknowing of all the mineral wealth in their territories before the war
or thought developing them would bring the English storming in. But even with
the Boers in power, the English were the first to start mining gold and diamonds
under Boer indifference. Correct me if I am wrong.
�
Regards,
Gary

Antonio:
Georges,
Thanks for your kind reply.
Also, I find your reply quite exhaustive.�
===============
G:
Thanks Antonio, but you overestimate it. Actually I did not yet reply,
but only excused myself for the delay due to the unusual complexity
of the issue. The first part of the reply will come in the next post.
Cheers
Georges.

 

Hi Antonio,
I did not forget you, but need some time to answer. Indeed, so far it
was just chat, but after your last post, it seems to point towards some
doing mode. I still think that the chances of us achieving something at
the social level are a shot one to hundred. Yet even 1/100 is more
than 0 and involves responsibility. And to answer responsibly I need
some time.

BTW, I did not recently read the WDDM. The idea of DD will be included
in my suggestions concerning the second enlightenment.

Cheers
Georges.

--- On Wed, 12/2/09, Antonio Rossin <rossin@...> wrote:

From: Antonio Rossin <rossin@...>
Subject: Re: [nominalism] Re: For Richard, Antonio
and Gary & Uncle Tom Cobley and All
To: nominalism@yahoogroups.com
Cc: epistemology@yahoogroups.com, analytical-indicant-theory@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2009, 9:40 AM

 

Georges Metanomski ha scritto:
 

Antonio: 

Georges,
I have very few doubts, that your work brings Knowledge up to
an higher level than before.  All what you stated, is an excellent
matter for teaching, as far as I can understand.

My point is but another:

As in itself, all what you stated is abstract, theoretical knowledge.
Very well: but now, the problem to face is how to make common
people - whom I call PITS - acknowledge it, so that your teaching
may enligthen their believing-behaving procedures.

(snip)

I question the demagogue-PITS relationship, wanting to spot
the PITS' needs that are met by the demagogue so effectively.

That is, I wonder what could it be the factor making any PITS
put his-her learning procedure into action as soon as he-she
happens to be in contact with a demagogue.

Accordingly, since every human action starts from an emotion,
I think the more basic emotion that triggers PITS' 1. learning
procedure is the so-called "existential fear", namely, a fear which
the subject suffers from instinctually without being able to know
its origin.  No wonder then, if PITS oblige to any demagogue they
meet, and learn from, provided only this fellow was able to give
their fear a recognizable voice and present as the saviour from
the recognized danger.

I mean, it is just this fear that bans PITS from "Sapere Aude".

What do you think ?

============ ==

G:

To start with, I generally agree. But it's much, much too much to
detail in a post. Let me restate the problems in my own words,
to see if we agree on descriptions, before looking for solutions.
I see four basic levels:

1. Fundamental research,
2. Ideology,
3. Social awareness.
4. Establishment.

Example, first enlightenment:

1. Scientific revolution of Galileo, Descartes, Newton which triggered

2. The ideology of "egalite, fraternite, liberte" of Diderot, Voltaire,
     Rousseau, Montesquieu, which, via l'Encyclopedie got enough

3. Social awareness to trigger the French Revolution, which, after a lot
     of abuse and reaction, resulted in

4. Establishment of representative democracy.

If we don't agree on that, let's discuss it, before trying to make
a step further. If we do, let's try to describe the respective 4 levels
of our own second enlightenment in statu nascendi. I have
rather clear ideas about 1 and 2 and, if you wish, I could expose
them as a start.

Cheers

Georges.
============ ===

(ant)

Could we discuss the link between 1., 2., 3. and 4., first of all?
For instance, trying to unify-rationalize  the procedure, I would
rewrite your above esample as follows:

1. Scientific revolution of Galileo, Descartes, Newton which established

2. The ideology of "egalite, fraternite, liberte" of Diderot, Voltaire,
     Rousseau, Montesquieu, which, via l'Encyclopedie, established enough

3. Social awareness to trigger the French Revolution, which, after a lot
     of abuse and reaction, established

4. representative democracy.

That is, I want to discuss the "Establishment" process as in itself,
i.e. the passage from a step to another, whichever the step may be.


As for your "4 basic levels":

1. Fundamental research,
2. Ideology,
3. Social awareness.
4. Establishment.

Let me recall, as I wrote at the start of this post, I have no doubt
at all on your fair Knowlege of the matter, so I agree in advance
on the first three steps.  It is the step 4. in the series, which I
would like to question more.  In which meaning do you use
that word?

Is it like the establishment of Democracy as a social behaviour, or
the Democracy establishment as a kind of social arrangement?

Regards,

antonio

Hi Antonio,
I did not forget you, but need some time to answer. Indeed, so far it
was just chat, but after your last post, it seems to point towards some
doing mode. I still think that the chances of us achieving something at
the social level are a shot one to hundred. Yet even 1/100 is more
than 0 and involves responsibility. And to answer responsibly I need
some time.

BTW, I did not recently read the WDDM. The idea of DD will be included
in my suggestions concerning the second enlightenment.

Cheers
Georges.


--- On Wed, 12/2/09, Antonio Rossin <rossin@...> wrote:

From: Antonio Rossin <rossin@...>
Subject: Re: [nominalism] Re: For Richard, Antonio
  and Gary & Uncle Tom Cobley and All
To: nominalism@yahoogroups.com
Cc: epistemology@yahoogroups.com, analytical-indicant-theory@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2009, 9:40 AM







 













Georges Metanomski ha scritto:
 




Antonio: 



Georges,

I have very few doubts, that your work brings Knowledge up to

an higher level than before.  All what you stated, is an excellent

matter for teaching, as far as I can understand.



My point is but another:



As in itself, all what you stated is abstract, theoretical knowledge.

Very well: but now, the problem to face is how to make common

people - whom I call PITS - acknowledge it, so that your teaching

may enligthen their believing-behaving procedures.








(snip)







I question the demagogue-PITS relationship, wanting to spot

the PITS' needs that are met by the demagogue so effectively.

That is, I wonder what could it be the factor making any PITS

put his-her learning procedure into action as soon as he-she

happens to be in contact with a demagogue.



Accordingly, since every human action starts from an emotion,

I think the more basic emotion that triggers PITS' 1. learning

procedure is the so-called "existential fear", namely, a fear which

the subject suffers from instinctually without being able to know

its origin.  No wonder then, if PITS oblige to any demagogue they

meet, and learn from, provided only this fellow was able to give

their fear a recognizable voice and present as the saviour from

the recognized danger.



I mean, it is just this fear that bans PITS from "Sapere Aude".



What do you think ?

============ ==

G:

To start with, I generally agree. But it's much, much too much to

detail in a post. Let me restate the problems in my own words,

to see if we agree on descriptions, before looking for solutions.



I see four basic levels:



1.Fundamental research,

2.Ideology,

3.Social awareness.

4.Establishment.



Example, first enlightenment:



1.Scientific revolution of Galileo, Descartes, Newton which triggered

2.The ideology of "egalite, fraternite, liberte" of Diderot, Voltaire,

Rousseau, Montesquieu, which, via l'Encyclopedie got enough

3.Social awareness to trigger the French Revolution, which, after a lot

of abuse and reaction, resulted in

4.Establishment of representative democracy.



If we don't agree on that, let's discuss it, before trying to make

a step further.








(ant)

Could we discuss the link between 1., 2., 3. and 4., first of all?



For instance, trying to unify-rationalize  the procedure, I would

rewrite your above esample as follows:



1. Scientific revolution of Galileo, Descartes, Newton which established

2. The ideology of "egalite, fraternite, liberte" of Diderot, Voltaire,

Rousseau, Montesquieu, which, via l'Encyclopedie, established enough

3. Social awareness to trigger the French Revolution, which, after a lot

of abuse and reaction, established

4. representative democracy.



That is, I want to discuss the "Establishment" process as in itself,

i.e. the passage from a step to another, whichever the step may be.











If we do, let's try to describe the respective 4 levels of our own

second enlightenment in statu nascendi. I have rather clear ideas

about 1 and 2 and, if you wish, I could expose them as a start.



Cheers

Georges.

============ ===




As for your "4 basic levels":



1.Fundamental research,

2.Ideology,

3.Social awareness.

4.Establishment.



Let me recall, as I wrote at the start of this post, I have no doubt

at all on your fair Knowlege of the matter, so I agree in advance

on the first three steps.  It is the step 4. in the series, which I
would

like to question more.  In which meaning do you use that word?

Is it like the establishment of Democracy as a social behaviour, or

the Democracy establishment as a kind of social arrangement?





Regards,

antonio

PS.

Georges, do you read the WDDM list debate?  If yes, I would like

to comment my last post there

Saicho@... ha scritto:
>
>
> Recently I saw pictures of students in an elementary Chinese school.
> They were all dressed the same and were acting as one would like a
> class of elementary students to act – calm, attentive and well
> behaved.  There is clearly much state ruled regimentation of Chinese
> society and that society is not only catching up with Western
> societies in terms of production and innovation, but more importantly
> in terms of education.  While we eschew such regimentation as being
> blatantly at odds with American values – such things as freedom and
> many elements of libertarian philosophy – we must face the obvious
> fact that China is on the path to surpassing the West  in many metrics
> that we hold dear.  No one wants a Borg-like society [ala Star Trek]
> wherein there is no such thing as individual prerogatives, choices and
> actions; on the other hand, we assume that the West does not wish to
> relinquish its position of wealth and global dominance.  Is there a
> middle ground in which a degree of regimentation is needed for the
> maintenance of a rigorous education system and at the same time a
> blanket of individual freedom that encourages new thought and progress?
>
Richard,

It seems to me, control requires knowledge. Accordingly, let's know the
mechanisms by which education happens and affects learners first, and
then let's see how the mechanism could be adapted-modified up to a
middle ground.  So late, there is no such basic knowledge (there is too
much common resistance against this discussion topic still)

> I ask this out of curiosity.  I have no desire for the West to possess
> global hegemony matters of technology or progress.  But I wonder if
> there is anything to be gained by either preventing or encouraging
> regimentation in schools or other institutions for the sake of
> “advancement” in many walks of life – in the USA or anywhere else?
>
> Antonio speaks of the PITS, as if they were a monolith of opinion and
> talent.  IMO, they are what they are allowed to be via those in power.
> In the USA there has been for a very long time the tendency to keep
> the  hoi poloi as dumb as possible – the reason: it is much easier to
> manipulate the uneducated than the educated. It seems that we have
> acquired a degree of regimentation – i.e. the uninformed masses kept
> too politically weak to make changes for their betterment.
>

Indeed, the term PITS (People In The Streets) is the same as Silent
Majority.  Here, people learn speaking in babyhood.  I don't see or
imagine any protocol in our educational system, schools etc.,  making
them de-learn what they already learned.  Therefore dumbness shall be
taught when they were babies.  I question: by which educational
mechanism, at their parents' disposal?

True, those in power exploit PITS' dumbness as much as possible.  But
their dumbness has to have been installed in advance, by parents, to be
exploited later on by politicians.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard
>
Bests,

antonio

 

Antonio: 

Georges,
I have very few doubts, that your work brings Knowledge up to
an higher level than before.  All what you stated, is an excellent
matter for teaching, as far as I can understand.

My point is but another:

As in itself, all what you stated is abstract, theoretical knowledge.
Very well: but now, the problem to face is how to make common
people - whom I call PITS - acknowledge it, so that your teaching
may enligthen their believing-behaving procedures.

I question the demagogue-PITS relationship, wanting to spot
the PITS' needs that are met by the demagogue so effectively.
That is, I wonder what could it be the factor making any PITS
put his-her learning procedure into action as soon as he-she
happens to be in contact with a demagogue.

Accordingly, since every human action starts from an emotion,
I think the more basic emotion that triggers PITS' 1. learning
procedure is the so-called "existential fear", namely, a fear which
the subject suffers from instinctually without being able to know
its origin.  No wonder then, if PITS oblige to any demagogue they
meet, and learn from, provided only this fellow was able to give
their fear a recognizable voice and present as the saviour from
the recognized danger.

I mean, it is just this fear that bans PITS from "Sapere Aude".

What do you think ?
==============
G:
To start with, I generally agree. But it's much, much too much to
detail in a post. Let me restate the problems in my own words,
to see if we agree on descriptions, before looking for solutions.

I see four basic levels:

1.Fundamental research,
2.Ideology,
3.Social awareness.
4.Establishment.

Example, first enlightenment:

1.Scientific revolution of Galileo, Descartes, Newton which triggered
2.The ideology of "egalite, fraternite, liberte" of Diderot, Voltaire,
Rousseau, Montesquieu, which, via l'Encyclopedie got enough
3.Social awareness to trigger the French Revolution, which, after a lot
of abuse and reaction, resulted in
4.Establishment of representative democracy.

If we don't agree on that, let's discuss it, before trying to make
a step further.

If we do, let's try to describe the respective 4 levels of our own
second enlightenment in statu nascendi. I have rather clear ideas
about 1 and 2 and, if you wish, I could expose them as a start.

Cheers
Georges.
===============

Antonio:�

Georges,
I have very few doubts, that your work brings Knowledge up to
an higher level than before.� All what you stated, is an excellent
matter for teaching, as far as I can understand.

My point is but another:

As in itself, all what you stated is abstract, theoretical knowledge.
Very well: but now, the problem to face is how to make common
people - whom I call PITS - acknowledge it, so that your teaching
may enligthen their believing-behaving procedures.

Accordingly, the next problem to face is not teaching, but learning.
Therefore, let's now question PITS' learning procedures.

I would investigate these PITS' procedures according to two (at
least) opposite Manners of Thinking:

1. Learning from gregarious emulation, to wit, by consent-giving
to the current authority in the outside;

2.� Learning from dialectical confrontation inside, to wit, by
personally figuring and possibly experiencing various chances
and performing responsible choices (in the inside).

What do you think?

It seems to me, the overwhelming PITS majority have got their
brains firmly engaged with the above 1.� learning procedure.

Also, I strongly suspect that this engagement allows no place,
to the self-arrangement of any different learning procedure.

As for myself, for my practice as a parent (and a psychiatrist)
I don't trust in the 1. procedure, since PITS who perform it are
too eager-prone to accomplish the last-speaking demagogue.

I question the demagogue-PITS relationship, wanting to spot
the PITS' needs that are met by the demagogue so effectively.
That is, I wonder what could it be the factor making any PITS
put his-her learning procedure into action as soon as he-she
happens to be in contact with a demagogue.

Accordingly, since every human action starts from an emotion,
I think the more basic emotion that triggers PITS' 1. learning
procedure is the so-called "existential fear", namely, a fear which
the subject suffers from instinctually without being able to know
its origin.� No wonder then, if PITS oblige to any demagogue they
meet, and learn from, provided only this fellow was able to give
their fear a recognizable voice and present as the saviour from
the recognized danger.

I mean, it is just this fear that bans PITS from "Sapere Aude".

What do you think ?
==============
G:
To start with, I generally agree. But it's much, much too much to
detail in a post. Let me restate the problems in my own words,
to see if we agree on descriptions, before looking for solutions.

I see four basic levels:

1.Fundamental research,
2.Ideology,
3.Social awareness.
4.Establiishment.

Example, first enlightenment:

1.Scientific revolution of Galileo, Descartes, Newton which triggered
2.The ideology of "egalite, fraternite, liberte" of Diderot, Voltaire,
  Rousseau, Montesquieu, which, via l'Encyclopedie got enough
3.Social awareness to trigger the French Revolution, which, after a lot
  of abuse and reaction, resulted in
4.Establishment of representative democracy.

If we don't agree on that, let's discuss it, before trying to make
a step further.

If we do, let's try to describe the respective 4 levels of our own
second enlightenment in statu nascendi. I have rather clear ideas
about 1 and 2 and, if you wish, I could expose them as a start.

Cheers
Georges.
================

 

=============
Antonio:

Georges,
Formal correction accepted.
==============
G:
Thanks, will perhaps make it possible to discuss more decently.
==============
Antonio:
Now, as regards the substance of my question, I recall:
(ant, previously)
  Do you say that
> 1. one's self-criticism and doubtfulness (nothing can be
> determined exactly by its observer), rather than faithfulness
> and gullibility

> 2. one's taking upon oneself the responsibility for verifying
> the correctness of one's own daily practices, rather than
> applying to the leadership authority, or to formal logics, for
> formal legitimation of everything (if it were required)

> 3. one's ability to think of difference s (antitheses) from the
> usual assumptions (theses) in what is called Critical
> Thinking, rather than fundamentalism,

> are not pertinent in any way to "human communication" ,
> i.e., to thebuilding up of the social tissue we are a part of ?

> Of course, you did not use these exact words.  You simply
> despised the  (supposed) authors of the quoted principles.
============
G:
I NEVER despise authors, only occasionally their assertions.
I don't despise Heisenberg, but respect him for the bulk of his
work. I respect his uncertainty FORMULA when applied to
measurements.
I despise its idiotic elevation to an ontological principle ruling
the transcendental, platonic "World Out There".
I don't despise Goedel and respect some of his works, like the
"Goedel Metric" of the General Relativity. I despise his
ill-founded and idiotic incompleteness theorem.
I don't even despise Hegel and respect the enormous amount
of work he did to create the biggest ever philosophy system. I
regret, that it resulted in dogmatic idiocy and despise this idiocy.

To your 1: I always said that cognition is fuzzy and justify it in
"NATURAL MODEL", paragraph "FUZZINESS".

To your 2: My whole RD is eulogy of Horace's Sapere Aude,
underlying Kant.

To your 3: I don't know what's "Critical Thinking", but believe
that antitheses i.e. negations of dogmatic cliches lead only to
equally dogmatic and irrational "minus-cliches".
Rationality does not arbitrarily negate, but calls in question.
Special Relativity did not negate Aether, but called it in question.
Kibbutzim don't negate politico-economic establishments, but
call them in question. So it all boils down to Sapere Aude.

Georges.

=============
Antonio:

Georges,
Formal correction accepted.
==============
G:
Thanks, will perhaps make it possible to discuss more decently.
==============
Antonio:
Now, as regards the substance of my question, I recall:
(ant, previously)
� Do you say that
> 1. one's self-criticism and doubtfulness (nothing can be determined
> exactly by its observer), rather than faithfulness and gullibility
> 2. one's taking upon oneself the responsibility for verifying the
> correctness of one's own daily practices, rather than applying to
> the leadership authority, or to formal logics, for formal
> legitimation of everything (if it were required)
> 3. one's ability to think of difference s (antitheses) from the usual
> assumptions (theses) in what is called Critical Thinking, rather
> than fundamentalism,
> are not pertinent in any way to "human communication" , i.e., to the
> building up of the social tissue we are a part of?
Of course, you did not use these exact words.� You simply despised the
(supposed) authors of the quoted principles.
============
G:
I NEVER despise authors, only occasionally their assertions.
I don't despise Heisenberg, but respect him for the bulk of his
work. I respect his uncertainty FORMULA when applied to measurements.
I despise its idiotic elevation to an ontological principle ruling
the transcendental, platonic "World Out There".
I don't despise Goedel and respect some of his works, like the
"Goedel Metric" of the General Relativity. I despise his ill-founded
and idiotic incompleteness theorem.
I don't even despise Hegel and respect the enormous amount of work
he did to create the biggest ever philosophy system. I regret, that
it resulted in dogmatic idiocy and despise this idiocy.

To your 1: I always said that cognition is fuzzy and justify it in
"NATURAL MODEL", paragraph "FUZZINESS".

To your 2: My whole RD is eulogy of Horace's Sapere Aude, underlying
Kant.

To your 3: I don't know what's "Critical Thinking", but believe that
antitheses i.e. negations of dogmatic cliches lead only to equally
dogmatic and irrational "minus-cliches".
Rationality does not arbitrarily negate, but calls in question.
Special Relativity did not negate Aether, but called it in question.
Kibbutzim don't negate politico-economic establishments, but call
them in question. So it all boils down to Sapere Aude.

Georges.