I received this question
>Can you accept that there are better points of view that do not include
>Objectivist axioms?
>If not, why not?
This is a question about whether a point of view does not need to include the
Objectivist axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity. Obviously, a point
of view must include a viewer (consciousness) and a view (existence). It's like
asking if there are points of view that are not points of view.Such a question
does not deserve an answer.
Here's another contradictory notion:
>Consciousness may be valid, in some contexts. I do not accept it as an
>axiom, however.
He's taking a position that his position is not legitimate since consciousness
is not legitimate.
And, look at this one:
>Your comments show little understanding of Buddhism, and I am hardly
>qualified to clarify, but I will try...
He says that he can tell I don't understand Buddhism but that he is not
qualified to say why. Here he goes again:
>You are maligning what you do not
>understand, and what I barely begin to understand.
One more contradiction:
>Within the monasteries, where life is structured
>rigorously with respect to its principles, "in bad shape socially " does
>not apply.
Monasteries are not social structures?
What does this have to do with CoV? Does this remind anyone of Level
3--acceptance of contradictions? Maybe Level 3 is not that original and has been
around awhile. -David