Re: [-empyre-] Forward from Chad at selectparks.net

[Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>]

Isn't everything examined on terms which can be held up to dispute? Aren't
all terms problematic? What is the foundation of the scrutiny?

The example of WMD doesn't hold (I'm ignoring the red herring here),
because, within the bounds of what's taken as physical reality, there
aren't any.

Alan

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, saul ostrow wrote:

> everything is always already true when judged by its own terms -- the
> question is can the terms stand up to scrutiny -- so yes its all real if
> you want it to be real just like the report on WMD confirms Bush's view
> because he says so -- your not talking ontology but tautology
>

http://www.asondheim.org/ http://www.asondheim.org/portal/.nikuko
http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt
Trace projects http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/writers/sondheim/index.htm
finger sondheim@panix.com