Replying to LO30711 --
Dear Hal:
I'm sorry you feel the need to disengage. It was my hope that by dropping
the definition debate in favor of addressing the key issues behind it our
discussion would take on a more useful direction. You, however, choose to
stay with the definition debate, this time by appealing to the authority
of Webster.
Since you have decided to retire from this discussion, I will regard my
previously stated issue as still quite open: Can there be such a thing as
correspondence between a statement or a claim and a fact?
Short of addressing that question and the line of thinking that follows
from it, debates about the definition of truth, the word, are pointless.
Regards,
Mark
Mark W. McElroy
President, KMCI, Inc. [www.kmci.org]
CEO, Macroinnovation Associates, LLC [www.macroinnovation.com]
(802) 436-2250
>I am sorry but I think I'll retire from this discussion. To continue on
>Mark's terms would require us to redefine words that Webster has already
>defined. It does not "beg" a question to use a term as it is properly
>defined.
>
>Mark wants to discuss the process of becoming true or ascertaining truth
>and that is good - but it is not the point of this discussion.
[...snip by your host...]
--"Mark W. McElroy" <mmcelroy@vermontel.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.