> [DAVID]RE: The statement I made seems to have served
> its purpose. How can an episteme--existing as an
> source of knowledge be reasoned, moreover reasonable?
> Reason is defined by the weighing of elements,
> preempting a decision. It has illustrated my point
> that labyrinthian dialectic often do not always exist
> as a precursor to an inevitable truth, that the
> opposing forces that embody the dialectic drive cannot
> function when a moribund use of broken terminology
> creates an almost sub-dialectic whirlpool. "reasonable
> episteme" is perhaps a theoretical reflection of our
> own reiteration ; the echo and narcissus myth.
Oh, please, I was there, I left it behind, I can see why it is so
exciting...
There is no way that you will reach any point of agreement, so--what is the
point of continuing...
Is it possible for you to change the theme?
L.
P.S.
And I do not like Coca Cola, I reject the correspondence theory of truth,
but I still believe in 'reasonable' conversation.
|