Zaay,
You apply tit for tat, which I appreciate, but you're tit for tat deconstructs down to the person, where as my tit for tat deconstructs down to the idea.
I'm not intereseted in your belief system, nor am I concerned with changing your belief system. This discussion is regarding the third value. If you're not into Open Source, P2P, the 'human network', Buckminister Fuller, i'm not here to convert you.
You mentioned your own belief systems on a thread a few pages back, you mention that you are 'man of faith' who will discard reason on a 'whim' if it suits you. You can keep your own contradictory and internally conflicting belief systems. I dont care to argue them at all.
My research on dialectic, truth values, and the possible outcome of applying them has been going on for four years now, I can assure you I can spot a misinformed opinion when I see one.
Statements like...
And I know more what goes on in people's heads than you might think possible.
reek of mysticism and beliefs, and you can keep those to yourself.
So, I am going to strip away the irrelevant tit for tat of ours that simply pits your contradictory and inner conflicting belief systems, and focus on your arguments regarding the third value, which is what this discussion is about.
you have said repeatedly that OS012 is about creating an environment in which discussion becomes win-win, where conflicts of ideas are resolved to the satisfaction of both sides.
Yes, I have.
So far, that hasn't happened.
sure it has. Jonny and myself found agreement on the hard nuts, we both learned from each other. This discussion is regarding the third value, period. It's not a discussion regarding our perceptions of each other, conflicting belief systems, or anything else.
I am distinguishing and deconstructing ideas down to their 'core', which in most cases, is founded in philosophy. Reductionism is philosophy
It also works as the foundation of proper science.
this is another misinformed opinion. The foundation of proper science is not the philosophy of reductionism! I'm sure reductionists would like to think so. I think you mean science is the foundation of the philosophy of reductionism.
You're right - I'm not following OS012. It is meaningless.
so why bother with all of these discussions. Bored?
again, posting your belief systems about the internet, which I find utterly boring, are irrelevant to this discussion.
So ideas you have such as..
The Internet is interesting in many, many ways; but as a forum to move and shake the world, it is still largely irrelevent.
Because the Internet is a place where people choose to remain anonymous; where heated discussion only occurs because identity remains obscure; and where actual action is pushed aside. The Internet is the lazy man's path to 'doing something' - precisely because you can come here, post your piece, and disappear, never having actually done anything. The Internet is filled with lies, with false philosophies, with false prophets. Internet resources are always considered suspect until independantly verified. Internet sophists like you are a dime a dozen. In five years, all this discussion will be moot. In ten years, OS012 will be a forgotten chapter in the history of the internet. Maybe even less.
are certainly not pushing the envelope! I don't care to argue the other way. I'm already joined by many brilliant thinkers, futurists, humanists, philosophers, scientists, entrepuners who have vision. I'm not interested in the belief systems of cynics and those caked in resignation.
What truth? I've advanced my ideas quite successfully. It is you who refuse to accept that.
I dont see anyone supporting your four value logic!
You're including the subjective as a primal part of the basis for this system; yet, ultimately, subjective experience is a secondary phenomenon.
Secondary to what? In what order and value? the subjective and the objective are not in competition, we need both of them to get both of them. If your placing a value of one over the other, your simply not thinking objectivly, and using YOUR own subjectivity as your PRIME argument.
Zaay, your inner beliefs are contradictory and internally conflicting. You go on tirades about the 'whims' of others, yet you yourself using nothing but 'whim' to dictate your actions, and even your own philosophy!
Your argument in text states that you think the primacy of the subjective experience is secondary. You fail to consider the 'primacy' of objectivity in unison with subjectivity in my explainations. You then go on to de-evaluate the primacy of subjectivity using soley your own subjectivity!
Those are you own inner conflicts and your own contradictions you have to sort out on your own. I'm not here to work those out with you.
Where is your mystery, before life arose? Where is your mystery, after it dies?
That's another mystery, eh?
Al-Sadr is definitely somewhere.
in iraq or iran?
Dark matter is a concept created by astrophysicists to compensate for an apparent lack of mass.
There is now evidence of dark matter's existence. But what is it if it can't be observed or recorded directly?
You are definitely feeling something.
But what am I feeling?
Osama is definitely somewhere. Osama is definitely feeling something.
hehe, you really dont like 'unknown' do you? Other that stating the obvious assumptions of neccesary truths that are assosciated with everyone's existence (we are all somewhere, we all are feeling), your four value logic here didnt tell us anything regarding the actual inquiery, nor the scenario surrounding them.
From the objective viewpoint - the only viewpoint that matters - all of these questions have true answers. Not one of these questions is mystery.
If you dont have the answer, then it's mystery. Period. Mystery is 'unknown'.
That I don't have those answers is irrelevant.
It most certainly is relevant when we are discussing the neccesity of the third value and the unKNOWN answer! You four value logic system can't address these issues. Period. To address this issues using certainty, not faith, you need a three value system.
With appropriate resources, I could give you all the true answers.
so? so could anyone. If I had the appropiate resources and could time travel, I could tell you what abraham lincoln was doing alone in his bedroom. Til then, it's an unknown.
All you have demonstrated here is that you value ignorance as a truth value. It isn't.
you have a very subjectivly dominant (again, you're own personal primacy is in the subjective world) definition of ignorant. To you it's a value of a person. the word actually means 'not knowing', lacking in information. That's it. I'm ignorant when it comes to partical physics and marine biology, I'm not when it comes to dialectic, philosophy, and media.
Those are unknowns, versus known values such as what is the value for Pi? Where is the Eiffel Tower? How much does an M16A2 weigh, fully loaded? Where is the hypothalamus?
But all of those questions have true answers.
ALL QUESTIONS have true answers in princaple. That's irrelevant. You clouding this argument with your own subjective primacy. Unknown or mystery is a truth value, it means that something is 'unknown', it is 'true' that it is unknown, it is 'true' that we do not know. When you do not know, then the only 'true' answer is 'I dont know'.
Tell me, how do you disable an MLRS launcher prior to missile launch, and stop it from firing, from the exterior?
I dont know
That question, too, has a definite true answer. That you don't know it is irrelevant. But under your system, from what I can tell, you'll accept 'unknown' as a valid answer.
It's an 'honest' answer, and the only place to begin to come to know. If I am delusional and think I know the answer when I don't, I wont ask the appropiate questions to come to know.
You haven't actually said much about what to do with these unknown answers. Most people, even if they don't know, realize there is a true answer, and would seek it if they needed to know. On the other hand, if they didn't need to know the true answer, they wouldn't bother.
exactly. You're confusing the third value as a piece of knowledge, instead of a piece of understanding. Three values is for understanding the knowledge we have, and the certain acknowledgement of the knowledge we dont have.
That's all your third value amounts to -it's an unresolved first value, and that's all it is.
it could be a first value, or a second value, we dont know because it is NOT KNOWN to be either true, or either false.
There are no objective unknowns. All questions have a true answer, and innumerable false answers. That we may not know those answers is irrelevant to the answer itself.
an objective unknown is an objective unknown. What is going on inside of a black hole, or what will occur in the future, are NOT KNOWN to anyone! Thus, an objective unknown.
Okay, now lets explore more of your inner contradictory values.
A proper logic system, which contains many appropriate values on many scales. You're attempting to cram a four value system onto a two value scale, and attempting to toss aside one of the four values. I'm simply demonstrating that any use of multiple scales - like known/unknown - is done a serious disservice by attempting to compress scales together.
zaay, your four value system you just made up last week!
Sorry, but the world simply cannot be broken down into binary, ternary, or quadranary systems. The world is a truly complicated place. Your oversimplifications are meaningless. Your 'third value' is nothing of the sort.
taoism gives a perfectly non contradictory philosophical map of nature, using two values for the basic distinctions and a third value for when they are indistinguishable.
The entirety of western religion and philosophy is based on either bivalent logic or dualism.
We only have dualistic, bivalent, or ternary maps to integrate knowledge. Now your saying it's all really a mystery and our own maps can't properly define it!
Oh the inner conflict......
Here comes another contradiction..
Truth values, in reality, are binary. Knowledge values, in reality, are binary.
wow, you contradict yourself within TWO PARAGRAPHS!
Sorry, but the world simply cannot be broken down into binary, ternary, or quadranary systems.
We know when something is true
we know when something is false
and we know when we do not know.
ANd that's all we need to know;-)
here comes another contradiction...
But using both scales, you have an honest complete picture.
sheesh!
Sorry, but the world simply cannot be broken down into binary, ternary, or quadranary systems.
are you going to make up your mind and resolve your inner conflicts or what?
In ternary, you don't, and no, you can't analyze a false idea any better than you can in any and every other logic system.
more subjective primacy.
Then you're deluding yourself.
the projection is all yours, my friend. Most of your posts are simply trying to argue the primacy of your own subjective philosophy, and to me, they simply are not valuable as they once were.
BF
