I didn't say there that I completely understood CoV, but I did imply that I
would destroy it. I still stand by that claim. This is because PCR and CoV,
like Rand's version of Objectivism, may have their limitations.
For instance, the concept of "contextual certainty" found in the writings
of Rand actually does have a problem, as Lee mentioned. There is no
distinction betweeen 'contextual certainty' based on a personal process of
inductive reasoning and 'contextual certainty' based on testing and
criticizing from others. The concept of 'contextual certainty' is
limited--it is good for helping people trust their own judgement, but not
good enough for learning about reality.
PCR as practiced at CoV has limitations too, as exemplified by the way
people try to get away with distorting context.
Something better than PCR may come along, and if I find it, then I will
destroy the CoV, if I feel like it. --David Rosdeitcher
--------------------------
Wow, David.
I have great respect for the stubborn, and this you are.
But why defend what you said yesterday...can't you see how you are,
ex-post-facto,
redefining every word? No...I didn't say X, I said Y...which is what you
were saying.
I just wanted to point out that Y is part of a meta-Y: a Y beyond the Y you were
discussing, it just sounded like X to you because you weren't initiated to
the true
meta-Y when we started. I'm glad that through this struggle you all have
accepted
the meta-Y. Now, the next thing I want to teach you is...
Come on, David. Brodie has already pulled that one. Fool me once...
Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------