Re: new to list

From: David G. McDivitt (
Date: Tue Aug 28 2001 - 20:54:07 MDT

I don't think your comments "clear the path to better understanding at
all". Your comments are nihilistic, only. They offer no new inspiration.
You are simply saying I cannot know anything from my metaphysical model
because you don't know anything from yours.

If my view is in error, give me something to replace it with. I do give
the realist something to replace realism with.

>From: "Technotranscendence" <>
>Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 22:21:50 -0700
>On Sunday, August 26, 2001 12:00 PM David G. McDivitt
>> "What if" scenarios have nothing to do with it. Consider each fact we
>> hold dear in terms of the sociological environment in place at the time
>> that fact came into being. Consider whatever political and religious
>> controversies. The point is, any arbitrary fact or piece of knowledge
>> could have been constructed at that time, and what was constructed met
>> the demand and dynamic nature of that environment. If constructed
>> knowledge proves useful, can be built upon, or in some other way
>> exhibits survivability, that knowledge remains. If not it goes away and
>> is superseded by something else. The knowledge we have exhibits the
>> exploratory and adaptive nature of mankind. We manufacture knowledge to
>> meet our needs and wants rather than discover it.
>But are you not making the claim here that this is objective truth? You are
>making claims about knowledge that are either true or false. If they are
>true, how can you know it, since you are conditioned by the same things.
>(Knowledge is knowledge -- even knowledge about other knowledge.) Thus,
>they're would be refuted. If they are false, then ditto.
>> Consider the new knowledge being formed today. How arbitrary it is.
>> Tomorrow many of these premises shall be the realism people debate with
>> then. But is it real today?
>And also for this statement. Surely, some specific item or theory might
>change -- as happened in the past. However, how do you know about such
>changes? If you claim they are merely conditioned by your context without
>regard to their veracity, then we can simply reject them as your fancies.
>If, however, you claim to have knowledge here, then there must be some
>contact with reality.
>This by no means solves all epistemological problems, but it clears the path
>to better understanding.


_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free address at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:20 MDT