Philologos wrote:
Now THAT is an obscure heading. A Philologos point to whoever gets it.
I am by no means an optimist. I despair of anyone here getting past the inanity that Free Will implies one is empowered to act. That is so manifestly contrary to all experience that none but an idiot would assert it, and none but an intellectually dishonest dolt would assume anyone seriously proposes it. But the ancient straw man gets tangled up in the slogan-monger's "prochoice" where in Big Brother's usage "choice" implies license.
Still, even in the Obama era it springs, and I will boldly essay:
1. Even if we all begin with identical hardware - which is manifestly untrue - and identical preinstalled software - which is dubious at best - no two minds, even those of Siamese twins, encounter exactly the same inputs.
2.The inventory of accredited data and preferred algorithms will therefore be unique to the individual. For the few who can find me hard to read, no two know the samew things or think the same way.
3. The blind men and the elephant - what Cain thinks he knows and knows he thinks may be just as valid as what Abel knows he knows and thinks he thinks. But they may be quite different.
4. It follows as the day the night that neither I nor ruveyn should categorize as hogwash, bosh, blether, Unsinn, upuuzi, or folia the other's recital of data and analyses, just as the biochemist should not dismiss as silly ravings the output of the astronomer, and vice versa.
5. If natheless one or t'other is seen to distort data or scorn the rules of reason, it is appropriate to pint the finger of scorn. So far, I THINK ruveyn and I can only point to differences deriving from his occupying a hill I have left for another. I do not think I see any willful or careless distortions or foul play.
Is it so much to ask that we be mindful of this priciple?
What does this have to do with Esperanto.
ruveyn
13 Aug 2011, 11:07 am
