All of this depends fundamentally on people being willing to play games, rather than make commitments in the first place. Jon's identification of "arguing over base ontological commitments" is simply a symptom of the unwillingness to play games. Everyone takes ideas too seriously. And more importantly, everyone takes their OWN ideas too seriously.
On 6/17/20 8:46 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Jon writes: > > < If we attempt to invalidate another's entailment by > switching the ontological grounds by which they were made, we act in bad > faith. > > > I just want to hear any falsifiable grounding in a commitment. I'm not > asking for a lot here. -- ☣ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
