Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Fri, 24 Oct 1997 18:05:41 +0100
Hi Platt and TLS,
Platt Holden wrote:
>
> So in one sense we end up with Doug's "many truths." Trouble is, that
> assertion is self-contradictory because it is framed as a single
> truth. And
> around and around we go again. Ultimately, the only thing that stops
> infinite regress and answers the question, "Who decides?" is one's own
> innate sense of quality. It stops when an individual human decides,
> "That's
> a good truth."
>
> Platt
>
Platt,
If you stand in SOM, I see how you can make the observation about 'many
truths' which you made. However, I do not see you standing in SOM.
Much the opposite -- you understand, as Bo has said, MoQ better than
most of us (TLS).
I do not frame my 'many truths to you,' in SOM. My context for that
phrase is MoQ.
To me both MoQ and QM prefer a precondition - 'many truths.' Perhaps I
should add the word 'potential,' but if we intuit MoQ and not SOM, Mtty
seems OK, by itself, without the extra word 'potential.'
Also, 'Mtty' IMhO subsumes SOM's one, absolute, deterministic truth as
just one of the infinity of truths. This places SOM in its proper
perspective: just one SPoV relegated to some obscure tiny corner of the
unifying and inclusive MoQ.
That is how I think about it. If it lacks MoQesque, please help me see
how.
One more item: I see QEs as 'decisions.'
Your contributions to TLS are superb.
Mtty,
Doug Renselle.
> --
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:06 CEST