synthesis. the synthesis of the exchange then becomes a new meme, which in princaple will spread, and conflict with other meme's, which then recapitulates further dialouge, resolution, and synthesis.
in principle.
In other words, in reality, you really don't know what comes next.
zaay, that's simply a misinformed opinion. your assuming, making an assumption, of how this is structured and your flat wrong.
I can assure you that is been considered, and it's not a problem that cannot be overcome rather simply and elegantly.[/quote]
Demonstrate or explain, then, please.
it's absolutly nothing like that at all. it's more similar to say that if everyone has equal access to resource, then there is no competition for resource
Again, obvious - and useless. Again, not everyone is going to allow equal access to resources. Some people'e demand for resources will outstrip their access. Some people's basic human natures will prevent others from gaining equal access.
So, yes, it's exactly like that.
I directly answer each question that is relative to this argument. I am not going to lay out the model for OS 012 discussion here, that would be foolish, however, this discussion is indeed a good functioning example of the princaples I am arguing.
I agree it's a good functioning example - page after page, and no one is convinced yet.
An opinion based on the fact that no system of dialectic has resolved any major issue as of yet.
you are not even close to knowing what you are talking about
In your opinion.
I can't walk through an imaginary person through this process, that wouldn't prove anything and it's also impossible.
Then you have nothing.
I will say however that i have had these discussions with many religious people, who actually have a easier time with accepting that God is an objective mystery over an objective truth.
Sure they do - to your face. they're more than happy to accept any definition that doesn't cause God to equal nonexistent. Because in their hearts, they're actually still accepting God as an objective truth, in spite of what they may be telling you.
I also had OS 012 discussions with a group of muslims, who actually were the calmest and most considering of all communities, ironically enough. One of them offered a contribution to OS 012, others said they found my 'antics' entertaining, and the moderator there, instead of threating to ban me for my antics, asked me to stick around, as they 'sorely need more rationality' around there and he rarely 'witnessed such dismantling of arguments using logic' as I had performed.
Yeah, we heard that claim before from you.
But, just like Christians, not all Muslims are fundamentalist extremists. My example was of a fundie extreme Jihadist Muslim.
How well would OS012 work with them?
How's that for ironic, eh? True experience, i swear. I'm still perplexed by it! It's the only OS 012 discussion of it's kind.
So, as such, you've had ONE success, versus how many failures?
well, that's not my experience! I get more miltant reactions about the third value from reductionists!
Not surprised, since reductionists are more likely to realize that you're blowing smoke from your wahoo...
Religious believers, woo believers, etc. are always more likely to accept any worldview that doesn't openly deny their beliefs. That's why any philosophy that emphasizes the subjective experience over the objective is so popular among that crowd.
Let's wait and see, eh? You're not considering a few factors in your critique, one being the global or cultural dialectic that is already taking place around world events, the rhetoric of the media vs the rhetoric of the politicians.
Yeah, it's been taken into account. It's been going on for a VERY VERY long time, and conflict resolution still boils down to more deliberate and immediate actions.
this is not true. None of you agree with the 'rules' of OS 012, yet I have succesfully navigated it with 40 hostile users through dialogue seamlessly on over 100 pages of discussion!
Not really - since in your claims you say that OS012 should result in a win-win - and so far, you haven't won an inch with anyone here. Further, no one here feels they have 'won' a thing yet, until/unless they can either make you go away, or make you start thinking outside your self-imposed triangular prism.
Depends upon how you mean hypnotise, and that's a poor example anyway. It's like saying martial arts only work on attackers who believe that they are a good method of self defense.
Not at all. Hypnosis doesn't work on people who don't believe that it works. Hypnosis only works on those willing to accept hypnosis. You have to go along with it for it to work, which requires belief and the ability to self-delude.
Martial arts is a little different from that, though a LOT of martial arts are the same way.
it assumes the primacy of mystery, true, and false
Which assumes the primacy of the subjective.
it denies no objective or verifiable fact
Oh, you're just deluding yourself here. It denies a lot of objective facts.
Like the fact that there's no such thing as an objective unknown.
that's an over complicated, sloppy and non working way to describe something ternary in nature.
Too bad what you're describing isn't ternary in nature.
It's an accurate, precise, and fully functioning way of describing truth values and awareness values, which are two different value systems. The ternary value you attempt to introduce is a false shoehorning of part of a second value pair into a value pair where it doesn't belong.
I agree, that is how we must not limited truth values to true or false, and keep them closed, but rather 'open' them into true, false, and unknown to avoid delusion.
No, truth values are binary. The delusion you speak of comes from the values of known versus unknown. Your oversimplification works only to stultify dialogue, in practice.
