RE: Well OT Re: What do you think is necessary in order to have an excellentcomposition?

["Miles Ward" <miles932@gmail.com>]

I find a lot of value in the re-examination of "easy language" that
aesthetic anti-cognitivism encourages.  Stop saying things you don't mean
folks!  I feel that I'm closer to the truth of the matter when I give that
kind of finite context to my evaluations, or when others do so when
evaluating me.  It tastes to me to be more genuine, rewarding.

Tasty!
-Miles

-----Original Message-----
From: Krispen Hartung [mailto:khartung@cableone.net] 
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 3:01 AM
To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
Subject: Re: Well OT Re: What do you think is necessary in order to have an
excellentcomposition?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "andy butler" <akbutler@tiscali.co.uk>

>> If you understand the theory and premises, then you will understand the 
>> points I made.

> Unless the theory is flawed, which it seemed to be.

They're all flawed, so that seems to be a moot point, not an
advantage to any of us. You aren't offering a counter-theory that
you think is not flawed, I hope...correct? Find me a speculative
theory of these sorts that is both complete and consistent
(showing that Gödel was wrong).  Flawed is a requirement of
even being invited to the poker game. It is the thinkers in human
history who claim that their theories are air tight and have no flaws that
scare us and become dangerous.  I like flawed. It means
that speculative thinking is not a dead discipline, and that
all those philosophy books in the libraries ought not to be
burned afterall, because each theory has some piece of
expanding human understanding.  So, I am cool with
retorts that a theory is flawed, provided one also admits
that the theory they are proposing in its place has its
own imperfections, and that we have agreed to take
the analysis down a deeper level.

But I think we may have worked this out offline, eh?

Kris