Re: virus: Angelica de Meme

Tadeusz Niwinski (
Sat, 06 Apr 1996 02:42:56 -0800

>> I am talking about us in CoV. I don't think our answers depend on WHO said
>> what. I take, you suggest to change my third question to:
>> (3) Do we believe we are capable of knowing this reality?
>> Fine with me. Do we?
>No, absolutely not. That's why I wanted to clarify. Stated in
>this new way, that's Rand's axiom, and is utter nonsense.

Does "utter nonsense" mean you are capable of knowing it with certainty that
it is such nonsense?

Why is it important WHO said it? If one concentrates on WHO, one tends to
bring history of what happened and forget about what one wants to find out.

>To "know"
>something with certainty is to deny that empirical falsification of
>the assertion is possible, and can only be true of meaningless

How can it be empirically falsified or proven that we are capable of knowing
reality? That's where we need an axiom -- something we cannot prove one way
or another.

Claiming that one is "capable of knowing" is not the same as claiming that
one is "capable of knowing with 100% certainty"? The reverse of the former
is "not capable of knowing" when the reverse of the latter is "capable of
knowing with some, between 0 and 1 certainty".

(Who is Ayn Rand, btw?)

Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa (604) 985-4159