Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA21319 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Wed, 14 Feb 2001 16:48:03 GMT X-Originating-IP: [184.108.40.206] From: "Scott Chase" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Re: realist-rationalist quad Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:45:32 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F2953GykBbKP7Ie8tlM00005101@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Feb 2001 16:45:32.0627 (UTC) FILETIME=[8BD70A30:01C096A5] Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
>From: Mark Mills <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Re: realist-rationalist quad
>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:35:30 -0600
>At 10:55 AM 2/14/01 +1100, you wrote:
>>Bear in mind that these are polar, not discrete, options.
>? Not sure I understand. I changed the website
>(http://www.htcomp.net/markmills/real-rational.htm) to look more polar, but
>I doubt this is what you mean by polar and discrete.
>> This describes
>>a field of positions that may be occupied in degrees rather than kind.
>Are you saying it is impossible to 100% realist and 100% rationalist at the
>It seems to be that one or the other must be primary at any given
>moment. It seems like a matter of methodology. Does one start with
>rational intuition? Does one start with refined sensual data (realism)?
>One has to start somewhere.
>>Moreover, there may not be equilibrium states (see David Lewis'
>>_Conventions_ for a description of these) but rather some sort of
>>chaotic attractors so that the most stable position is something like
>>pragmatist realism but not entirely.
>Pragmatic realism... hm, where is that on the quad? 90% realism, 30%
>rationalism? Given my 'first steps' metaphor, 90 steps toward enhanced
>sensual data and 30 towards rational understanding? And of course, does
>this have anything do to with epistemology?
>>How you could determine this I am
>>not sure. Perhaps it could be modelled and then tested against
>That sounds interesting. Did any ideas come to mind?
Isn't this veering into personality typology, akin to Jung's scheme with
sensation, feeling, intuition, and thinking and the introversion versus
extraversion thingy? Are these sorts of concoctions tenable or are they
kinda like castles in the sky?
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 14 2001 - 16:50:16 GMT