DDeBar states
>I didn't see the previous posts that probably led to this one, so I am sure
>I am missing something. However, since I saw this one, I guess the only way
>to get "up to speed" is to jump in. Accordingly, please excuse the
>following response if it seems a bit off-handed.

-Larry Libby
 The original post to which I responded was a few days back. Please excuse
me for deleting so much.  I would like to respond only to the parts that
pertain to my comments.

LL:
>> Perhaps I misunderstand, but I don't see how the requirement of storage
>> necessarily requires authority.  Actions of conservation don't require
>> authority. Organization doesn't require authority.   And there certainly
>> should be no human-made limitations on what is defined as truth.  Human
>> knowledge is  indeed a social construction, yet "knowledge" can be wrong.
>> It is through questioning assumptions that we progress. Maggots aren't
>> generated by rotten meat and the Earth is not the center of the universe.
>> If I may utter hersey, truth exists OUTSIDE of ourselves; it is our job
>to
>> discover it.  In my experience, authority usually constrains knowledge.
>> Entropy can be prevented through application of energy, but this does not
>> require authority.

DDebar:
>If I'm not being too obnoxious, would you define what you mean by
>"authority" in this context? "Truth" itself, after all, might be considered
>to be an "authority", THE "authority", perhaps, in the quest for "truth",
>i.e., if the task is to understand the facts of the environment in which we
>exist, those facts themselves (as differentiated from our ( up to that
>(this) point, imperfect) understanding of them) are as relevant as can
>be...in any event, hardly a "constraint".

LL:
If I'm not sounding flip, by authority I meant human authority; people
telling people what to do, what is and is not.  Certainly the font of human
knowledge is not constant, but I would argue truth is.  Truth is certainly
the authority (beauty, too).
>
>>                 (much relevant text deleted)

E. Taborsky (originator of thread):
>> >The possible answer, might be the constant reflexive action - as
>> >Chomsky does - the insistence on evidence, the insistence on
>> >openness, the insistence on the power of dialogue. Nietzsche's
>> >'ubermensche'.

LL:
>> Please don't count me among the ubermebschen.
>>         -LL

DDebar
>Or me...(ESP. among the "ubermeBschen"...I don't even know what that
>MEANS!!!)

LL:
Ho ho.  Isn't one typo a minimum requirement for email?  (Three exclamation
points?)

>>   "Open your eyes
>>    And look within.
>>    Are you satisfied
>>    With the life you're livin' ?"
>>             Bob Marley
>
>