Re: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics

Tadeusz Niwinski (tad@teta.ai)
Sun, 28 Sep 1997 22:41:35 -0700

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Tadeusz Niwinski: "Re: virus: MS Weapon"
Previous message: Tim Rhodes: "RE: virus: Meme, the Underlying Cause"

Tim wrote:
>I, Prof. Tim, do hereby believe and so state, that it is not only
>unnecessary to define "primary concepts" about the nature of reality in
>order to create a constructive language that can be used to further define
>one aspect of what we mean by "reality", but that the effort is misguided
>(and hopelessly recursive to boot!).

Excellent point. Can a language have no primary concepts? I may be
thinking the way our ancestors thought about Earth as flat and having a
begining and an end somewhere, but with language I see no way to be able to
define anything without "pra-words" which we do not define, and explicitly
or implicitly treat as self-explanatory.

Can somebody enlighten me? Can "truth" be defined?

Tim, what do you mean by "hopelessly recursive to boot!" ?

Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa
tad@teta.ai http://www.teta.ai (604) 985-4159

Next message: Tadeusz Niwinski: "Re: virus: MS Weapon"
Previous message: Tim Rhodes: "RE: virus: Meme, the Underlying Cause"