Hm. But enlightenment (IMO) only happens in a personal sense. And "personal" implies tight couplings. Eg Dick Cheney being OK with gay people because his daughter is gay, despite him being evil in every other non-personal aspect of his decades in power. Or Milo _finally_ realizing how bad abstract rhetoric is when a recording surfaces about his tolerance of pederasty ... or internet trolls being contacted by phone or f2f by their victims.
If your rhetoric (and remotely felt actions) are _transitive_ ... if they percolate out, intact, from you to the listener, then the listener can be enlightened. But if all the personal elements are eliminated by abstraction, then that can't happen. There is no abstract truth. All truth is personal. Hence, it cannot stand or fail on its own. That's just nonsensical. We see this in science, quite clearly. It's not the scientific "law" that is true. What's true are the experimental protocols that take you from initial to final conditions, everywhere and always. And experiments are personal, not abstract. On 05/05/2017 09:06 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Speaking truth to power implies that the truth stands on its own (or can be > falsified). There's no obligation to model the listener. There's the > possibility the listener can be enlightened. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
