RE: virus: False Paradigms

Wright, James 7929 (
Fri, 04 Apr 97 10:03:00 EST

> David McF. wrote:
>>This mailing list is not less mystical. It never was mystical. The only
>>that has changed is that you are attacking the CoV less frequently. I
assumed >>that you had grown weary of beating up those strawmen.<<
[I guess not, David McF.; see below]
> There appears to be at CoV a silly agnosticism that is quite
[Prejudicial language will not assist you to propagate a point of view
among open minds. If it is prevalent, it may still have value.]
>Stuff like "Level 3","all truths are half-truths", "I don't know if
there's a
>god",etc. get treated as objective, as if there is no difference between
>arbitrary assertions and legitimately supported assertions.<
[The implicit assumption is that these statements are not objective. This
is true in the statement that begins with "I", as it is clearly
subjectively written. Labelling "level 3" and "all truths are
half-truths" as "arbitrary assertions" requires that the labeler make the
case that they are, which is not done here.
The sub-assumption that "only legitimately supported assertions are
objective" requires examination as well. "Legitimately supported" by
whose criteria? How do you demonstrate the objective truth of a mental
construct? Are only assertions that can be validated by appealing to the
axioms of Objectivism allowable? Why should they have any greater
legitimacy than any others?]
> Such a distinction could answer Tony's question about the
irrefutability of statements like: "I FEAR I NEED TO EAT THE QUEENS
[Viewing this as two statements, the first is an expression of desire,
the second a proposal demonstrable through practice. Refutation would be
impossible in the first statement, and would require an exhaustive study
in the second. Neither is refutable as far as I can tell.]
>Pancritical rationalism and objectivism, paradigms in which truth is not
>absolute, get mixed up with false paradigms which claim that reality is
[Truth is not absolute in Objectivism? How then can one make statements
about the nature of objective reality?
Actually, I'm curious about something: if one has not personally
experienced all of objective reality, then how can one adopt axioms that
purport to encompass its nature?]