irrationality is no hindrance to something being 'true'

At the moment this is incomprehensible.

Define "truth" at least !

that is why truth is in inverted commas i suppose in deans work
but i take the elementary criterion of truth would be logical
it seems dean is saying no matter what you call truth -if it is self contradictory then logically it cant be "true"
freedom from contradiction i would assume is the first criterion of any theory of truth in orthodoxy

No...freedom from contradiction is about "validity" not "truth". "Truth" is a concept which generally assumes a "reality" independent of the observer.
That is the naive realism which is undermined by both QM and esoteric philosophy.

Since we are two similar threads you can take these remarks across both.

Maybe Dean hasn't read Capra who is much more coherent.

you have not read deans book
if you did you would see exactly what you are talking about

dean uses QM IN HIS EXAMPLES
as well examples from mathematics

As you present it, Dean doesn't understand QM !

Perhaps you could give references to his biography and seminal texts.
Is he the same guy who is interested in erotic poetry ?

A google search implies this guy is relatively unknown in the world of philosophy. His themes such as the limitations of Aristotelean logic and the limits of language have been well hammered by Godel and Kosko, and Wittgenstein and Foucault. His plea for aternative epistemologies has been tackled by several authors includig as Piaget and Capra.

It appears we are discussing an intellectual self-publicist of little import.

I get the sense that nightrider is Colin Leslie Dean.

The thought had crossed my mind Joe

dean shows that all these guys end in self contradiction or meaninglessness
particulary godel and wittgenstien
as far as i know dean is the only one who has said that all products of human thinking end in meaninglessness

thesis and its antithesis all end in meaninglessness-even meaninglessness
nihilism skepticism existenalism -that all philosophy philosophers are bankrupt
it is interesting that you thought dean important enough to se if he was important in the world of philosophy-he would be impressed

have you read any of his erotic poetry-what did you think

godel witt and the rest regard their logic and language as a privilaged tool of knowledge-that is why they are creating systems using them-
dean is so far beyond these guys it is not funny
dean shows these guys end in meaninglessness due to their use of logic and language
witt is stlil trapped like his fly inside the bottle of logic and language- and godel and the rest as well
all would be so upset to be told they talk nonsence meaninglessness and their systems meaningless

Nightrider,



Oh so he's the messiah then !

If you enjoy word salad...good luck to you. So far you have described a guy who is to "philosophy" what primate scrawlings are to "art". Big deal...so he has a problem with the infinite regress of language, or the static set theory of logic applied to a dynamic world....hardly original thoughts...yet he also writes erotic poetry....which presumably is "meaningless" too. I think those punk bands that demolished their gear probably did that act a lot better.

BTW nightrider/ aka nightrover /aka pam69ur

I notice you are not getting much joy on the other forums you are blitzing

They're all bankrupt because they contain self-contradiction? I thought Dean's theorem was that self-contradiction and other forms of irrationality were not a deterrent to truth. If Dean (or you) is really willing to allow for irrationality, then why are philosophers considered bankrupt for (supposedly) being irrational?

For that matter, if Dean is committed to the thesis that self-contradiction poses no hindrance to coherence, then the fact that you are encountering disagreement here should not strike you as a problem. You are posing "x" and we are countering with "not x"... which in Dean's world seem to be perfectly compatible. It makes me wonder what makes Dean "so far beyond these guys" if what these guys are saying are, by Dean's standards, consistent with what Dean is saying. It sounds like you want Dean's theorem to prove the falsity of Wittgenstein et. al.; but you can't have falsity if you're willing to allow contradictions. So which is it? Eating your cake, or having it?

Shapeless

It looks likely we are responding to Dean himself who appears to have privately publshed his own material as "Gamahucher Press" Australia.
He seems to have contibuted his diatribe under the pseudonym Gamahucher to Wikipedia.

If you refute this nightrider here's your opportunity.

Gamahucher, derrived from gamahuch, is an English erotic underground term of the 19th century. (oral sex)

i thought we disccus philosophy here
so why are you becomming obsesed with dean
i mean you seem to hunt him down with a great passion-why does his views disturb you that much or is envy that he has something original to say in this world of toe the line parroting conformity

Why would anybody be envious of an obsessive inarticulate spammer with sexual fixations?

BTW, how much money did you waste publishing that drivel ?

hey your the one hunting him down-looks obsessive to me-any reason why this witch hunt

Dean,

This is a well established forum of relatively honest contributors. Frauds like you provide an interesting diversion but generally go and play elsewhere when challenged to actually debate the contributions of others. Since you have in essence rejected the machinery of debate (language and logic) which is a well known reactionary tactic associated with inarticulate adolescents, and since you have denigrated acknowledged "greats" like Godel and Wittgenstein (who were acutely aware of the limitations of that machinery) you have now have an insurmountable credibility problem if you persist in your childish identity games.

BTW. Appeals to "multiple self" philosophy such as that of Gurdjieff, or "evoked self" through language, such as those of Dennett or Maturana,
are a quantum leap above the level on which you are currently operating.