Michael says,
"The problem for me with the term "self evident truth" is that it implies
that it is no longer open to question. (I said *implies*, not becomes so
necessarily.) A set of principles implies more openness to challenge (by
testing)."
I must note that this is a little out of context because of my editing.
My only point, Michael is that I agree with you entirely that SETs don't
really exist, and I claim that this is irrelevant because we act as if
they do exist.
We claim tha business and political parties and our neighbors should all
know inherently what is the right thing to do in certain circumstances.
These "right things" can only be the consequence of SETs. So, even though
they don't exist, they appear to exist. We all see them at various times.
We all act on them, and we all -- I do, anyway -- criticise others for not
adhering to them.
Since they appear to exist, I wonder what they are.
--Rol Fessenden LL Bean, Inc. 76234.3636@compuserve.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>