|
|
 | | From: | Lester Zick | | Subject: | Re: Epistemology 101 | | Date: | Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:05:02 GMT |
|
|
 | On 29 Dec 2004 16:21:05 -0800, "Ross A. Finlayson"
in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>I think this is a good thread, for what it is yet inconclusive. I
>enjoy reading Lester-ism.
Much grass, Ross, I enjoy writing Lesterism and doing the thinking
needed to write it.
>Truth is that which is not false. The basic truism is the identity and
>tautology. Then, the abstract observer is externalized, to consider
>that there is more than one truth, yet in the style of Ouroboros all
>the same truth. With using set theory as a mathematical foundation, we
>can explore the essence of truth with what we deem as rigorous and
>empiricist methodology, to explain mathematics where within mathematics
>all mathematics are concrete.
>
>The abstract yet concrete set theory, or rather, theory (TOE, reality),
>is only removed from reality to the extent that you care to make it.
>It is not.
>
>There are extensive philosophical ruminations that correspond to the
>context of empiricist theory if you care for consistency, and even
>completeness and concreteness.
>
>Now, if we could divorce epistemology from post-modernism, then that
>would be funny.
>
>Warm regards,
>
>Ross F.
Thanks again, Ross. I'm not sure you get it all yet, but I think we
have enough warm fuzzies for lift off.
Regards - Lester
|
|
|
