> At 12:57 AM 16/03/97 -0800, Tadeusz Niwinski wrote:
>
> >>Yes. So what is your analysis using Level-3 or post-rational thinking? Is
> >>it possible for David R.'s axioms to be neither mutually justifying nor
> >>unjustified? If so, how? (I'm looking for more than your assertion here.)
> >
> >Of course it is. A Level-3 mind sees its memetic programming as
> >a collection of different, possibly conflicting ways to map Objective
> >Reality (if it chooses to use that distinction-meme).
> >
> >Possible, justifying, unjustified -- these are all distinction-memes.
>
> Sure, but how does that show that David R.'s axioms can be neither
> justified nor unjustified? Are you saying that they can be both,
> or that they are neither if we dispense with the categories?
David R.'s axioms are justified from some points of view, unjustified from
others, both or neither from yet others. I don't find them particularly
illuminating or provocative, personally.
Eva