>You profess to not know what you believe, yet you have just written an essay on what you believe.<
Worse'n that. I've written on what I think I believe. The threat of autoparalytic recursion raises itself.
>"the cosmos which surrounds
and suffuses us may be understood and broken to our will by the assiduous practice of Logic
constructed upon Empiricism". Isn't this the very truth that you use every day to feed yourself and
your child?<
Well, no. I distinguish between the ineffable Root Pattern of the cosmos and my/our lifelong observational model of the cosmos. It is this model which I, scientist, seek to advance and refine. It's the convenient and largely continuous, consistent features of this model which guide me into eating, sleeping, washing. I have no quarrel with embracing a consensual model of the (????) which we call reality, and running with it. After all, I am really dismayed at the real money I'm losing in this see-fer-yourself market rout. The guy kicking the stone and shouting "I refute you thus!" sorta missed the point. Nobody (except a toasted shaman) would deny that
Kick Rock = Toe Booboo.
(Unless you introduce second-order refinements to the model, like Steel-toed Boot.)
(And the toasted shaman will come on down eventually and say "what did I do to my f*&^%$#g toe???)
Sure, it's all there for everybody to connect the dots, at least to get a working knowledge of how to deal with, uhm, stuff. But when you sit down and start peeling the onion of What's Finally Real, weirdness ensues. Of this weirdness I try to write. |
