Jim Choate wrote:
> > anything WITHOUT context is meaningless.
>
> No, it just may not be true in all situations. Consider cosmology,
> nihilism, and pantheism for a contrary argument to this supposition.
the context there is at least the experience-sphere of mankind. I doubt
that pantheism has the slightest meaning for, say, a tree.
> > this is exactly what I'm saying. in MATH, or if you want to refine it
> > further, in the science of numbers and base 10, 1+1=2. in other fields,
> > it might be different. yet whatever it is, in many fields there is
> > exactly one precisely defined truth. you can NOT make 1+1=2 untrue
> > without changing the context. which is what you're doing above - and
> > below:
>
> The distinction between these fields is in your head, not the reality we
> observe outside of our imagination.
granted, however:
> They're a bogus distinction.
I don't follow the conclusion. just because something is in my head does
not mean it's bogus. the difference between a loved one and a hated
enemy is in your head, too. it's still far from bogus, irrelevant or
anything else. it is what defines your relationship with them, much as
the distinction between math and other sciences defines those.
> If you're going to make some 'truthful' statement about one of them then
> it must apply to all of them. Otherwise it isn't 'truth' it's the
> consequence of a small set of situations or environmental conditions.
which is what I'm trying to say all the time: what we call "truth" is
only relevant in context. call it "small set of situations", I call it
context.
> Confusing ones point of view with objective reality is a failing not a
> feature.
we agree on that. I don't yet see where exactly we disagree.
> None of these were a single facet failure. The reality is the usual
> sequence is that there is either a resource limitation or economic failure
> that raises disaffection.
...but that failure or scarcity of resources do not spark revolution or
other major changes all in themselves is also well-documented throughout
history. as you say: there's a lot of things that happen before a major
change occurs.
> But more to the point, the fact that people who believe in fundamental
> classes (I call them elitist) of people are drawn to positions of power
> because it's the only real opportunity for them to act on it.
it is? I'm an elitist by your definition, because I do believe that a
large part of humans can safely be called sheep, while a small minority
usually drives states and cultures - no qualification as to whether they
do it well or not.
I also believe that one doesn't NEED a position of power to enact
change. I've been in the middle of a couple events (DeCSS recently) that
do have an effect on the world beyond my four walls. it took less than
100 of "us" to get a world-wide industry moving (against us, but so
what?).
> This factor,
> prior to demoncracy, hadn't been built into the system.
has it in democracy? at least in the representative democracies we have
today, I doubt it. democracy the way it works today is a great
attraction point for exactly those people. I'd almost say you can get
rid of half the power-addicted in a western country by bombing its
congress/parliament/whatever.
I might be biased by personal experience, but from those people I've
seen getting active in politics, there are two kinds and only two kinds:
the power-addicted and the idealists. the idealists usually become
roadkill of the party system early in the game. probably better that
way, idealists can be horrible tyrants (against anyone not fitting their
ideal).
