RE: [WDDM] Regarding the social network site

[Georges Metanomski <zgmet(at)yahoo.com>]

--- ROY DAINE <rdaine(at)btinternet.com> wrote:

> Well Georges,
>
>   I hold my hands up. I cannot compete with your
> wordsmithery. Furthermore your post is compelling. I
> accept the argument that kibbutzism is the only DD.
===============
G:
Convergence, but oscillating one. Here you went
further than me. I never said that Kibbutzim was
the only DD, which would imply "the only possible
one". I asserted only that they represent the only
DD so far realized in practice.
===============
>   You said - 'One may, of course, create an infinity
> of axiomatic
> models and call them "DD", postulating for instance
> that "DD" is founded on flamenco dancing.'
>
>   Absolutely. It could be said that the
> blahblahblahs were our attempts at so doing.
>
>   While investigating the word 'axiom' though, I
> happened upon the following - 'A stipulative
> definition of a term carries a meaning which a
> speaker wants it to convey for the purpose of his or
> her discourse. Thus, the term may be new, or a
> stipulative definition may prescribe a new meaning
> to a term which is already in use.'
>
>   In which case, the blahblahblahs could be classed
> as 'stipulative definitions'.
>
>   Now, as I understand it, axioms are falsifiable
> but stipulative definitions are not.
==============
G:
How did you arrive at definitions, stipulative or
not, while investigating "axiom"? They have nothing to
do with one another: Euclid's Axiom founds a
particular Geometry, but in no way defines it, as
"Geometry" does not admit intentional definition.
You will not be the first to have trouble with
the concept of "axiom". I'd suggest that when having
trouble with a concept I'm using, say so and I will
gladly explain, but don't look in dictionaries which
will usually give you bullshit.
==============
>   Would I be correct , by the way, in surmising that
> you are or have been, a student of metaphysics?
==============
G:
Good Lord, no! I did research in Einstein's team,
which would be diametrically opposite to metaphysics,
if the latter meant anything.
To clarify it, I'll quote from an Einstein's letter
the assertion which I put at the head of my
"Second Enlightenment" investigation and site
( http://findgeorges.com/ ) in the "PREFACE":

QUOTE
"Concepts and Conceptual Systems get justified
exclusively
by their capacity to coordinate events. They cannot be
justified in any other way. Therefore, it is, in my
opinion,
one of the most pernicious acts of Philosophers to
have
transferred some conceptual bases of Natural Science
from
the controllable domain of empiric adequacy into the
inaccessible heights of the Necessary Apriori.
This applies particularly to our concepts of time and
space,
which the Physicists - forced by the facts - had to
descend
from the Olympus of Apriori in order to repair them
and
make them usable."
UNQUOTE

Georges.
===============