Hi.

----------
> From: Lawrence Libby <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: definitions
> Date: Tuesday, April 29, 1997 5:56 AM
>
> 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.

No problem, I usually do it myself.

> 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.

Eh...I don't know. Isn't everything in the universe that we know of
changing? I thought that the essence of the dialectic was that things
always change, are always becoming, and that this was the only unchanging
truth, if there is one.

>  Truth is certainly the authority (beauty, too).

Trust me, beauty can certainly change, both in absolute and relative terms.
For example, the actual "thing" of beauty (whether material or circumstance
or whatever) itself, being comprised of matter or the motion of matter,
will change (see previous). And the observer of the thing will also change,
as will her/his/their perspective.
> >
> >>                 (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?)

Sorry, I pulled out my German dictionary with the too small type and
strained for 20 minutes or so to come to the realiztion that it was a typo.
I bet a careful review of my posts, above and elsewhere, will show I am
certainly up to the minimum.

Peace.

Don DeBar

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