"fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message news:t4adnRibfdpErEXMnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 7/6/2013 9:50 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote: >> "fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message >> news:urednfGmS_X9uUXMnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@giganews.com... >>> On 7/6/2013 6:20 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote: >>>> "fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message >>>> news:QrGdnSwFF7s95krMnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>> >>>>> Still, there are few choices: >>>>> >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma >>>>> >>>>> Take your pick: circularity, infinite regress, or meaningless syntax. >>>> >>>> Oh, come on, those are the choices for the mindless rationalist only. >>> >>> Perhaps. >>> >>> Suppose one merely imposes a constraint upon >>> "knowledge" in so far as it be "objective". >> >> Merely? > > Sure. Why not? That had been the criterion > by which Kant attempted to reconcile Humean > skepticism.
OK, and I'd think that is "good enough" for our (western) "science". I was just thinking that drawing that line is "merely" the crucial point of the exercise...
> That happens to be the historical reference > that most closely agrees with apoorv's sense > of the matters relating the universal quantifier > to infinity. He did not understand the reference > when I posted it. But that is not a problem.
I have tried and re-read the thread: I fail to see all the connections, but that's good. :)
>>> There are an indeterminate number of choices >>> for subjective knowledge. Its limits lie >>> with the imagination of the individual. >> >> There are as many sensibilities as there are individuals, but one and >> only one rationality: only the sceptics and the liars deny that. > > Is it representable?
The ultimate knowledge is not representable, it is the proverbial cannot-be-spoken-of. It is knowable though, by practice, i.e. "directly": the usual western thinking on origins rather has the cart before the horses. Then, upon that one original knowledge, there is one and only one rationality, that reflects the rationality as within cosmos. Such rationality is self-representing.
> There are now many logics. > Either the unique rationale is representable or > it is not (like the "realist" bivalence?). If > it is representable, then it has already been > represented or it has yet to be represented. If > it has been represented, by what criteria does > one recognize its canonical form? If it has not > been represented, how can we know? Will we be > able to recognize it when it is represented?
Following the above considerations, there can be no "theory of everything" in any ultimate sense. On the other hand, I think the present scenario could be much cleaned up, simplified, then improved: the present Babel and the proliferation of whatnots is the greatest self-accomplishment of the liar.
> Disregarding all of that, what is your sense of > the one rationality?
We know it when you know it, it self-represents: it is a matter of understanding, then of mutual agreement.
>>> But, what of knowledge in the objective >>> sense? >> >> I so I believe, that ultimate knowledge is not subjective, although it >> is not "objective" in the usual sense either: the comprehension of >> cosmos is more of a spiritual adventure, then, among other things, a >> rational endeavour. > > I can agree with that.
Is there maybe an alternative? I mean, anything other than demons?