[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

01787: RE: [WDDM] Regarding the social network site

From: ROY DAINE <rdaine(at)btinternet.com>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 17:53:26 +0100 (BST)
Subject: RE: [WDDM] Regarding the social network site

I should have said that kibbutzism represents the only
DD so far realized in practice, according to your axiom. It is in fact what I meant.

I was unaware of the actual meaning of 'axiom'. I looked at a wikipedia article which stated -

'In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be self-evident. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.'

I assumed that your axiom, "K"  -

Each member has equal opportunity and weight to:
-propose a rule,
-to investigate and understand all proposals,
-to argue for or against any proposal,
-to influence the resolution.

- was what you considered self-evidently, to be DD.

The blahblahblas would then be, in my opinion other peoples axioms.

I then took the time to investigate the terms intensional and extensional definitions. In perusing a wikipedia article on 'definitions', I came across the term 'stipulative definitions'.

It seemed to me that the blahblahblahs could come under this description, as indeed could your axiom.

When I think upon it, it seems to me that stipulative definitinion is more appropriate than axiom.

Democracy, in it's many forms, means different things to different people, regardless of it's origin. When describing direct democracy things are more unclear. We thus have individual people explaining what they mean by DD, by providing a stipulative definition.

Whether any existing system matches their defintion matters not, it is simply their way of explaining what they mean, when they talk about direct democracy, in order to successfully communicate.

Now I may be wrong in my understanding of all these terms but it only really matters when trying to communicate with you.

For most of us, looking up the meaning of a word in a dictionary is sufficient. It is likely that most of us doing so would arrive at a similar understanding of the word.

The fact that you may be able to show that the dictionary is wrong, is of no benefit. Most of us now know what we mean and can use the word when communicating, knowing that most people will understand it's possibly incorrect meaning.

Which puts you in a minority, if you're using the word in an alternate 'correct' way.

It is obvious that your education far exceeds mine. When you talk of Einstein and philosophy and mathematics, much of what you say is beyond me.

Thus, in order for us to communicate successfully, especially when talking of ideas, it's necessary to use terminology with which we are both at ease.

Being dismissive of other peoples ideas about how they wish to live and be governed, simply because they do not meet your exacting standards in their terminology, may lead to your ideas being similarly dismissed.

Yet your ideas have merit. While I wouldn't personally wish to live in a kibbutz, others have obviously found it a worthwhile and satisfying life.

It does not though, at first glance, seem to lend itself to the governance of large populations.

I mentioned metaphysics by the way, because it was also mentioned in some article where intensional and extensional were used.

I did not pursue it.

Roy
Georges Metanomski <zgmet(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

--- 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.
===============

[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]