Erislover's reletivism discussed
I have'nt figured out the lj cut process yet, but for those interested in the original post I will put it in my memory under subjectivism/Erislover.
To those familiar with my posts, I remind them that the distinction between ordinal measures and cardinal is basic to epistemology. The problem with the Erislover argument is that it defines away cardinality, and then, because we can't think without it, sneaks it back in using intersubjective as the means. We can "know" things for certain (cardinality) when two or more of us agree to the limits as defined. This is quite close in meaning to Rand's: (paraphrased)A concept is an integration between two or more units sharing similar characteristics, but to different degree. Her measurement omission gives her universality.
Recently, there have been posts regarding the foundations of mathematics from both the mystical and relativistic perspective. The split between the two extremes seems to be about 50/50. But, according to the relativist method of gaining cardinality ie, through mutual agreement, truth becomes subject to majority rule and no one can demonstrate a clear majority which makes the probability of right/wrong no better than guessing. I can be the deciding vote by joining with the relativists and giving them their majority because I am equally opposed to both extremes. I am up for grabs and I am saying that of the two positions, only the relativist can be salvaged. This is because they hold out the idea that they can be persuaded to stop being a relativist if the right argument is presented. This is the identical problem facing Thales 2600 years ago. He is my first argument. Science and philosophy owe Thales their connection to deducion. The difference is so obviously different as to require no explicit argument. His demonstrations are proof enough. Implicitly, Thales and later Rand, explicitly, unite value and measurement (which are ordinal/cardinal corrolaries). Erislover claims value/measurement to be incommensurable. This is what I was talking about when I said the calculus is the key to making ordinal, cardinal (ie, integrating them) and it makes objectivity possible.
The next time you see someone you know who is clearly taller, or shorter than yourself, just ask them what their cardinal height is and you will have converted your ordinal observation into the certain cardinal one. This kind of thinking involves the integration of your old ordinal estimate to the cardinal. For instance: I am about 3" taller than so and so. Measures are taken and the result is that I am 6'2" and so and so is 6'5", my estimate PROVES TRUE.
To those familiar with my posts, I remind them that the distinction between ordinal measures and cardinal is basic to epistemology. The problem with the Erislover argument is that it defines away cardinality, and then, because we can't think without it, sneaks it back in using intersubjective as the means. We can "know" things for certain (cardinality) when two or more of us agree to the limits as defined. This is quite close in meaning to Rand's: (paraphrased)A concept is an integration between two or more units sharing similar characteristics, but to different degree. Her measurement omission gives her universality.
Recently, there have been posts regarding the foundations of mathematics from both the mystical and relativistic perspective. The split between the two extremes seems to be about 50/50. But, according to the relativist method of gaining cardinality ie, through mutual agreement, truth becomes subject to majority rule and no one can demonstrate a clear majority which makes the probability of right/wrong no better than guessing. I can be the deciding vote by joining with the relativists and giving them their majority because I am equally opposed to both extremes. I am up for grabs and I am saying that of the two positions, only the relativist can be salvaged. This is because they hold out the idea that they can be persuaded to stop being a relativist if the right argument is presented. This is the identical problem facing Thales 2600 years ago. He is my first argument. Science and philosophy owe Thales their connection to deducion. The difference is so obviously different as to require no explicit argument. His demonstrations are proof enough. Implicitly, Thales and later Rand, explicitly, unite value and measurement (which are ordinal/cardinal corrolaries). Erislover claims value/measurement to be incommensurable. This is what I was talking about when I said the calculus is the key to making ordinal, cardinal (ie, integrating them) and it makes objectivity possible.
The next time you see someone you know who is clearly taller, or shorter than yourself, just ask them what their cardinal height is and you will have converted your ordinal observation into the certain cardinal one. This kind of thinking involves the integration of your old ordinal estimate to the cardinal. For instance: I am about 3" taller than so and so. Measures are taken and the result is that I am 6'2" and so and so is 6'5", my estimate PROVES TRUE.