item #2459

Phew ... 469 messages since Friday. Thank you! Just don't know how I'll answer you all, so I'll just say this ... Epistemology contains a basic question, of course. Personalisation matters, I agree. For your information, I am adequate to that task, as I'll attempt to prove, if needed. Moving on, though, it's a false opposition, I think, to be radically practical, as this wrongly questions the translation of related issues into, what might be termed, a scientific methodology. I am here to develop such theories into usable models, that compete with other theories, destroying them forever. There are new sciences. The information we have is enough. I spend my days processing intelligible programmes which mimic a long-overdue humane capacity devoid of the usual contradictory positions. In that spirit, the first theory of that kind that I stressed contains no absolutes. I have always emphasised relations between data which is situation-dependent and that which tends more toward compounding a strain of continuous and active interference. The point is this: the world is far from static, far from passive; but it affords no purview of knowledge which is in any other reasonable way adaptive. No-one, in other words, is Aristotle. Let us start by agreeing upon that, surely. Knowledge is merely the expression of a preexisting dependency upon logical and empirical methods; including mass human gatherings around principles dominated by production and its reflection.

Appreciated.