Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00268)

In a message dated 11/21/99 4:17:03 PM Central Standard Time, WLR7D@aol.com
writes:

> I have not defined words such as proof, reason, logic, evidence and the
like
>  because I am not interested in a debate on semantics.

There are two assumptions made in this statement that I would argue to be
false.  One is that issues of semantics are completely separate from issues
of substance, that meaning and reality or the nominal and the real are two
separate spheres so that linguistic knowedge of one's language(s) and
extra-linguistic of reality are separate.  That assumption is false.  So,
contrary to what seems to be your second assumption, definition is not a
matter of mere semantics.  Science and philosophy recognize real definition
(defining the substance by an explanatory grasp of the real thing in itself,
whether a theorem or a physical object), ostensive definition (showing an
example of what one is talking about), or nominal definition (which you seem
to mistakenly assume the other two can be reduced to).

>  If I ask someone for proof or evidence, I am happy for them to provide it
in
>
>  whatever form they choose.  This gives them the option of not being
> hamstrung
>  by my definitions.  They can create their own.

Fine, great.

I just would like to know on  what basis they make whatever assertion they
make.

Basis determined by whom?, them?, you?, or is basis something itself to be
determined and clarified by debate about it?  The latter option is what I
have been trying to engage you in.  Otherwise, basis for one person is not
basis for another.  Analogy: you're like the Muslim, while saying you won't
impose your definitions of things upon others, demands of the Christian that
they don't quote the Bible but rather the Koran to establish their Christian
case.  Unless a mutual ground of what constitutes a reasonable basis is
arrived at, one persons's experience is another person's delusion.

>  I'd also just like to see people say something of substance regarding
>  theosophy.  Make some assertions, some claims, something other than
playing
>  cute with words.

Again, the assumption that semantics and substance are strongly separated,
plus
perhaps, another tacit but unacknowledged application of your own concept of
"basis" for unilaterally determining whether someone is talking semantics or
substance all the while refusing to allow how you conceive and apply your
concept of "basis" to make that distinction from being brought out and
discussed in order to critically examined it in the public light of day.  I
think at this most many of us might like to hear what your "basis" is for
distinguishing "substance" from
playing "cute with words."

As far as atoms as perpetual motion machines, I didn't think the idea
warranted serious consideration.  My impression was that it was taken as
humor by most of
us as it was meant to be taken.

Grigor