KARL JASPERS FORUM

NOTE 58

FURTHER TO N56 AND N57

by Philip Benjamin <medinuclear@hotmail.com>

A member from this gentle forum once labeled me *worse than a terrorist* , because *he* is among *us*. I thank him for that, a welcome reminder of possible slippage into abysmal errors, which it is better to be constantly reminded of. [I do not totally subscribe to *total depravity*, but in redeemable degeneracy]. I know what it means to be on the *stakes* and I always wondered how I got away! As the wisdom of the East goes, *that which is born in the fire will not fade in the sun* !!

A letter of mine in JCS email was printed in KJF and sent to me. That is how I happened to know of this forum. Occasionally I have contributed here. That is entirely at the pleasure of the Moderator. He has every right to accept, reject or ask for modification. I have every right to opt out or not participate. I really do not see the necessity of a hubbub.

I understand that Glen Wood is a very fine senior citizen who has a passion for Jaspers, as he understood Jaspers (for graduate studies and further). He has spent his life counseling and caring for sick folks, modeling on Jaspers. It looks like he gets upset when he thinks that Jaspers is misquoted or distorted. Apparently, the word *sick* is no taboo and is not caustic for a Jasperian.

**************************************

by Adrian van der Meijden <adrf@orcon.net.nz>

NETIQUETTE

There appear, at 1.6 million websites, as many kinds of moderator as there are chefs in kitchens. But the following seems relevant, inclusive of creating a good communal atmosphere, which excludes correcting other contributors. It all reminds me of the difference between politicians and statesmen. Wonderful thing language.

http://www.fau.edu/netiquette/net/ten.html

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR COMPUTER ETHICS from the Computer Ethics Institute

1. Thou shalt not use a computer to harm other people.

2. Thou shalt not interfere with other people's computer work.

3. Thou shalt not snoop around in other people's files.

4. Thou shalt not use a computer to steal.

5. Thou shalt not use a computer to bear false witness.

6. Thou shalt not use or copy software for which you have not paid.

7. Thou shalt not use other people's computer resources without authorization.

8. Thou shalt not appropriate other people's intellectual output.

9. Thou shalt think about the social consequences of the program you write.

10. Thou shalt use a computer in ways that show consideration and respect.

http://www.cybernothing.org/cno/docs/rfc1855.html

*A good rule of thumb: Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you receive. You should not send heated messages (we call these "flames") even if you are provoked. On the other hand, you shouldn't be surprised if you get flamed and it's prudent not to respond to flames.

*# Make things easy for the recipient. Many mailers strip header information which includes your return address. In order to ensure that people know who you are, be sure to include a line or two at the end of your message with contact information. You can create this file ahead of time and add it to the end of your messages. (Some mailers do this automatically.) In Internet parlance, this is known as a ".sig" or "signature" file. Your .sig file takes the place of your business card. (And you can have more than one to apply in different circumstances.) etcccc

http://www.albury.net.au/new-users/netiquet.htm

Interactive Services (eg Internet Relay Chat - IRC)

* Listen to a channel first, to get the feel of what is and is not acceptable. Above all, respect the culture of the group.

* Remember the world is a big place full of very different people.

* If you find a topic that offends you, then don't join it.

* If you find yourself in a channel that becomes offensive to you, leave it.

Unacceptable behaviour on your part may get you banned from that server.

**************************************

by Adrian van der Meijden <adrf@orcon.net.nz>

Most all of that 'ad homimem' talk is mainly about style, syntax and  institutional conventions aka parochial POVs.. I can only repeat that so called scientific or academic style by way of "discourse"  is conducted in the impersonal or depersonalised "abstractive" mode with categorised nominalisms, and referrred to in several websites showing us how to write academic essays and papers. It takes students many years to learn to do this and  in his "Anatomy Of Criticism" and other books Northop Frye makes fun of how some student do write their essays. Perhaps I have a more "Father William " mental process going on as I found  G. Wood not objectionable but coming on strong about Muller's  non-conformity with the vaunted "KJ Forum" of Jasper's exitenstialisms. What I read here amounts to different attitudes grounded in a POV of sorts. in degrees of firmness.  There seems to be a lot of private mail going on too, which, gathered up, looks to me like pouncing when a simple request to write in a more impersonal style might have done the trick. I find Muller's shifting around of positions between being a Forum with a moderator changed into an editor simply amusing and boring. I would like to know exactly what are people defending here? The right of only professors to post or what? IF so close it into a list. As a once editor myself I found all too many contributors needing a complete re-write of their papers. That's what editors do, but it is not done in forums; lists are something else. And as an also once "secretary" I found secretaries need a delicate sense of style. I note my quotes from Halton Arp and others have been *silently*  edited out. Perhaps Muller could indulge in adding a comment like "Edited by HM" or something. Perhaps I should offer to re-frame Gwood's style into the impersonal metaphoric. I don't approve of politically correct much. I had to once more rescue Muller's missive from my ISP classing it as spam.

**************************************

by Adrian van der Meijden <adrf@orcon.net.nz>

<1>

Fascinating. I had to rescue this post from my ISPs spam filter list. And precisely what percentage of the members of this *forum* object to others' opinions and metaphors ? I have a list somewhere of 300, which makes these comments statistically insignificant.

Dewey Dijkstra> Quote "I do not mean by this that they must agree, but they must respect the ideas of others".

Adrian : IS not that a two way street? And one man's rant is another's wisdom. Did not Karl Popper point out that progress is made by dissent and falsification? Moreover NO theory has a proof. That's why they are called theories. WHOM does "they" refer to? the non-epiphenomenologists? Antidisestablishmentarians? Mavericks?

Bill Adams "Filter Wood out".

Adrian; THAT is an attitude conflict between a materialist and an existentialist, where the existentialist pleads for Muller to either pay respect to the use of Karl Jasper's name or simply change the name of the list, with supportive quotes from KJ.

Hugh Bone: "what is fit to print for years,"

Adrian: Wonderful Phrase. We had a nice example here in NZ on telly, which is paid for from taxes. We have two major parties and five minor parties. TV2 decided the minor parties were trivial and were not represented in TV debates. It was taken to Court and the Judge decided the minor parties had all to be present. This led to splutters by the TV interviewer management that this was an infringement of their decision to decide "what's fit" to show on telly. The election result however gave 49 seats to National, 50 seats to Labour and the rest of 122 to the minors who are now in the kingmaker position if they don't like what either National or Labour legislates; funny that. Vox populi versus vox academica. Both Labour and National are wooing the minors now. We have a month to wait for the overseas special votes.

Andrew Brook:

"" I'm inclined to stick to moral suasion so long as the misbehaviour is not causing immediate practical problems.

MISBEHAVIOUR? ?practical? problems: meaning what? Is this a voice of mini-tolerance? It's too ambiguous to decide. And when Glenn Wood tries to apply MORAL suasion to a person it's called what? Why not direcly state that the style and syntax on this *forum* is impersonal, and conducted in nominalisations instead of those euphemisms and delightful categories.

The resolution is quite simple. Turn it into a closed club or a list, or let those who dislike other's opinions form their own list, where everybody can agree with all others singing the same song. I had this problem ten years ago with several linguistic groups and I got rejected for my dissentient opinions ONLY TO FIND OUT TEN YEARS later that my opinions are now Kosher and accepted, more funny that. Or let me remind you of, was it Pres Johnson? , who had a sign on his desk "IF you cannot hack the flack, get out of the kitchen".

Allow me to cite Halton Arp, from "Seeing Red" contra red shift, with a growing number of websites into the electric universe. and much berated and ignored by the Establishment. Here are some brief quotes outlining what Arp has learned from these exchanges.

* "When presented with two possibilities, scientists tend to choose the wrong one."

* The stronger the evidence, the more attitudes harden.

* "The game here is to lump all the previous observations into one 'hypothesis' and then claim there is no second, confirming observation."

* "No matter how many times something has been observed, it cannot be believed until it has been observed again."

* "If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.

Adrian. SO TRUE that one. I was disallowed from pursuing a Ph.D. legally disallowed and now that same university is full of furreiners.

more Arp:

* "When looking at this picture no amount of advanced academic education can substitute for good judgment; in fact it would undoubtedly be an impediment."

* Local organizing committees give in to imperialistic pressures to keep rival research off programs

* "It is the primary responsibility of a scientist to face, and resolve, discrepant observations."

* Science is failing to self-correct. We must understand why in order to fix it. The book has many more like these.

And yes the I Ching illustrates a DYNAMIC ever changing universe, in fact it's the only book which does so, except for some Greek's odd quotes; Heraclitus? The politically correct status quo ONLY wants a static universe and hates to be reminded that it is NOT. nota bene. And I wonder how Come Muller,, OOOPS *this *forum*, has not posted my comment that pedagogues imitate archaic initiation rituals. I'm am forever puzzled how come those blank slate initiators know THE truths to peddle.

In a Harvard study of a footie game the watchers ONLY saw what their side did right and the other side did wrong. I am here seeing another example of such selective blindness. In another study of manipulating viewers to accept a false interpretation of an image shown of black hearts, only a few could NOT be persuaded by a group to say it was a red heart, because that's what it ought to be. Observer bias is pandemic to the human race. What did the Bishops do with Galileo's telescope ? What was said about man flying? Eppur si muove; BUT, still, it moves.

"""How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think." - Adolf Hitler

And what do the Protocols of the Elders of Zion say about facts and ideas ?

""''Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.'' - Joseph Stalin.

Forum: from ONELOOK dictionary and in Latin that's what it means. Forums don't have editors, publications do. And internet is neither a book, a lecture hall, garden party nor a library.

Quick definitions (Forum)

a.. noun: a public facility to meet for open discussion

a.. noun: a public meeting or assembly for open discussion

a.. noun: a place of assembly for the people in ancient Greece

Merriam Webster

Etymology: Latin; akin to Latin foris outside, fores door -- more at DOOR

1 a : the marketplace or public place of an ancient Roman city forming the center of judicial and public business b : a public meeting place for open discussion c : a medium (as a newspaper) of open discussion or expression of ideas

2 : a judicial body or assembly : COURT

3 a : a public meeting or lecture involving audience discussion

b : a program (as on radio or television) involving discussion of a problem usually by several authorities

INRI, rest in peace. About "door" what about the Knocking at the Gate in McBeth?

**************************************

by Adrian van der Meijden <adrf@orcon.net.nz>

A storm in an eggcup

**************************************

FAIR HEARING REQUEST FOR PHILOSOPHY*

*Notation: Due to interdisciplinary protocol of TA relevancy I offer this Comment as a target-defense Note to Note 56, EDITORIAL QUESTION on censorship. t was initially prepared as my comment to Mr. Muller’s TA 81-82, C 12.

(*Reference: Karl Jaspers Forum, Statement of Purpose, paragraph two, second and third sentence, "The philosopher and psychiatrist Karl Jaspers pointed out the need for open philosophical reflection which is grounded in present experience and cannot be replaced by fixed traditions or methods. This maxim is proposed as a guiding principle to the FORUM.")

<0>
Please allow Jaspers a hearing regarding the effort to put him in a naturalism category. How can one be more fair than to look-see who in open discussion is more wrong than right ? He has already replied to this issue of the derivation of humankind, for example, in his "Reply to Critics" in Editor Schilpp’s The Library of Living Philosophers; The Philosophy of Karl Jaspers. One can be assured that his comment in The Perennial Scope of Philosophy that "Man cannot be understood on the basis of evolution from animals" is a more accurate summary (and Jaspers says it’s a summary) of Jasper’s philosophical faith than Mr. Muller’s "he clearly accepted biological evolution of humans". Jaspers could easily reply that when one asserts something never claimed, one refutes what was never asserted.

<0.1>
Mr. Muller propagates that I’m a radical proponent of creationism. I can only ask that he be at least as-if objective and give citation. Where have I used the word or concept creation ? One might anticipate attacks from fundamental quarters for my refusal to manifest a certain style of word use, but I’ve only been attacked by a few including Mr. Muller and their attacks have been based on what they have conjured — constructed, created, arbitrarily.

<0.2>
It is within the traditional thinking of Karl Jaspers to parade and criticize worldviews whether in his work on the Great Philosophers, his Psychology of Worldviews, or his Future of Mankind. It’s regrettable that the Editor and some others are feeling uncomfortable, and this can be classified as at least feeling ill at ease. That’s a normal polarity essential for communication. I’ve not used the classification of schizothymic (thinking on the edge but still within the limits of normality) but it seems appropriate when trying to understand the meaning of "subjective-inclusiveness experience" for that seems like a withdrawal from objective criticism, a foreground camouflage for exclusivity; and that seems to be what’s really meant by talk about ongoing subjective experience not being the "consequence of any objective process".

<0.3>
Lest I be accused of arguing by insults, let’s get to something Mr. Muller can identify with, like questions relative to Jaspers handling of the apeiron and naturalism. My comments below amount to an answer to Mr. Muller’s thought experiment in <7> TA 81-82 C12 where I’m asked for my signature and two others on an undetermined statement. He thereby identifies me with and makes me a party to something agreeable to two theocratic institutional representatives with worldviews that must come to terms with being associated with terrorism and the inquisition. I suspect the question is supposed to somehow prove the necessity for radical constructivism (vs. I don’t know what), atheism (zero derivation), while proving there’s no trustworthy historical reality independent of whatever is meant by mind. For reasons stated below, I hesitate to be limited to institutional personages confined to historical situations that have precipitated the problem. We don’t look for solutions to a complex in the complex. Before participating in the thought experiment surely I have the right to counsel, and why not from an authentic systematician (constructionist) like Karl Jaspers.

<0.4>
Patience is requested as I show that the same form of question was ask of Karl Jaspers which he answered by putting the forces behind the question on public display. The question, posed by James Collins (Department of Philosophy, St. Louis University), is whether Jaspers and Kant could agree upon anything regarding naturalism and Thomism. It’s fair play here and within the scope of Muller’s Comment about science and religion, or, in other words, scientism or naturalism and institutional-established religion as used by theocracies. That is covered in item <2> below, but first some concept-preparation comments about Anaximander’s apeiron.

<1>
First, Gerhard Knauss gives Jaspers the chance to align with the naturalistic interpretation of Anaximander’s apeiron. Knauss states there might be questions whether Anaximander is referring to something infinite or something determinable (that is, something undetermined but determinable). Then he says Anaximander "thought of it in the manner of an Encompassing of all the elemental materials contained in it; and not, indeed, as a mere summation of all things but as something that penetrates, rules, and regulates everything." (Schilpp p. 142, see <0> above for bibliographical reference and more details at the conclusion of TA 51.)

<1.2>
Jaspers reply is that Knauss "draws a few lines in terms of his own emphases and transformations, and finally offers a few critical observations…not against my basic thoughts but against my systematic expostion". Jaspers basic thinking process here is probably a continuum of the reasoning about Anaximander in his The Great Philosophers. There--in answer to the alleged naturalism that man developed from animals of another species--he says "Such views are imputed to Anaximander by other writers. Only one sentence, though introduced in indirect discourse, is quoted verbatim, and its content is entirely different" and further on he states the difference to be "the emergence of things from the apeiron and their return to it might perhaps be distinguished from the emergence of things from one another". Jaspers is saying to Knauss that the emphases on one sentence by Anaximander is in itself inadequate, but when that sentence is looked at, it simply might be the objective understanding that we come out of consciousness as such and return to consciousness as such, rather than finding something systematic and corporeal to cling to as surrogate or original dirivation.

<1.3>
In his "Reply" to Knauss Jaspers ignores the word "apeiron" entirely in a direct sense, partly because its controversial significance — also acknowledged by Knauss -- leads to a naturalism complex. That complex had already been penetrated and the dimension, frame of reference, is now philosophy. In the context of an ever-expanding realm of wisdom such as in a work on philosophy edited by Schilpp, it’s out of place. Why? Because biological science is not only an ongoing endless endeavor but also it has been and will be penetrated to the point of seeing its limits in the sense that the more we know the less we know (whether it’s neanderthalensis or floresiensis -- ad infinitum). Upon this realization, philosophy kicks in — engages at the limit of cognition. I’ve spoken against the trend where discussion proceeds upon the presumption that an absolute derivation for humankind is a maxim not just a premise. This philosophical perspective should not be considered symptomatic of Jaspers discomfort with natural science as Mr. Muller has done. (See Jaspers/ Heisenberg items <8> through <11> TA79, C5).

<1.4>
Knauss points out that "the derivation is missing" from Jaspers’ "seven modes of the encompassing". (Mr. Muller speaks to only one "encompassing" and that of personal experience, and not the other encompassings such as variations of consciousness, psyche, feeling states etc.)

<1.5>
Jaspers responds by saying Knauss is not interpreting him correctly. "I have expressly declared myself against any derivation for the encompassings." The encompassing concepts "not arbitrariness, but the acceptance of having had the experience is the basis for the unfolding." "Derivation is impossible, unless we could find that principle of Being from which everything that is or can be would have to be derived." His "encompassings" is a way of handling experience and the ground of experience, but that philosophical logic is not revealed as divinely inspired dogma. This is not the same as what Mr. Muller means by his formula of zero-derivation regarding objective reality. For Jaspers there is the reality of the comprehensive ground of the psyche. The ground is not reducible to faith in science as the absolute premise for the universal acceptance of a worldview. It’s a philosophical faith comparable to revelational faith in that Being can speak through objectivity but not with creed-like definitiveness that needs no interpreting. However, Jaspers is tolerant of non-institutional revelation (but intolerant of revealed truth as a universal force), whereas Mr. Muller is intolerant of revealed truth unless institutionally approved for universal acceptance, and this intolerance becomes the force behind his handling of the fundaments of religion. (See Jaspers’ Philosophical Faith and Revelation.)

<1.6>
My first question to Mr. Muller is: How does he interpret Jaspers’ following statement? "Perhaps what gives [biology] meaning is precisely and solely that through understanding it comes up against that which is ununderstandable through the play of thought at the limit of cognition." The interpretation Jaspers gives is that what is valuable about biology is revealed by the fact that in contrast to earlier unclear conceptions of transitions, it is coming to an increasingly definite realization that this origin is unfathomable. (See his Perennial Scope of Philosophy, chapter on Man.)

<1.7>
Understanding Jaspers reply to the Knauss-reference to the naturalism alleged of Anaximander is important to reestablish the integrity of Jaspers possibly lost by efforts to associating me, and therefore my interpretation of Jaspers, with forces about which Mr. Muller thinks everybody understands and with which I must be cavorting.

<2>
Second, James Collins criticizes Jaspers for not learning something from Naturalism and Thomism. This sets Jaspers off because it’s an implication that he lacks the awareness of science and Collins a greater familiarity with science and religion. Jaspers: "Whatever becomes object to and knowable by us is in some sense appearance, not Being itself (Kant) — our knowledge is able to grasp Being itself as thought object (St. Thomas)." (Schilpp, p. 799)

<2.1>
Jaspers begins his in-depth reply with comments about the forces involved in Collin’s use of "isms" in "naturalism, Thomism, and Kantianism". Because they are isms, Jaspers approaches them as forces and "therefore never answerable", i.e. one cannot talk with a dogmatist. To communicate about biological naturalism Jaspers shows that Thomism is a far different force than Kantian thinking. Only Thomism is unambiguous because Aquinas represents catholic authority (Sainthood = St. Thomas). Natural biology is ambiguous but if reduced to the authority of objective certain unchangeable truth it becomes unambiguous. He says it’s the ultimate task of philosophy to probe these isms so as "to become clear, if not concerning the ultimate origin — which is impossible --, at least concerning this depth itself". Note; he says naturalism, as unambiguous origin, is impossible.

<2.2>
Jaspers answers Collin’s admonition to revisit naturalism and Thomism — for a further quest for truth -- with elucidating talk about forces and the need for a criticism of a new kind. It’s not a new knowledge, but an "essential type of thinking or inner action…" I see Jaspers talk about forces and the new way of looking as referring to very difficult but clear objectifications, such as seeing that the forces of naturalism have always historically existed. I mean humankind has always struggled with biological naturalism. It didn’t start with Darwin or Aquinas, or with Anaximander or the biblical Paul, nor did it start with Moses. Seeing it philosophically is seeing the forces of naturalism in Chardin and Thomism — that’s Jaspers’ "authentic criticism of philosophical reality". He is saying to Thomistic Collins that he is in the service of a theological naturalism and himself (Jaspers) in the service of authentic selfhood’s criticism. Jaspers is in the service of a criticism which tries to "catch sight of what is precisely not visible" but something felt, like: here I stand and cannot do otherwise.

<2.3>
Jaspers: "Objectivity is the indispensable medium of all speaking" whereby the deeper forces make themselves known if one dares to lay bare "the discussion in the foreground [that has] become an unnoticed hoax." (See Schilpp’s p. 849 f.) This is my second question to Mr. Muller: What sort of objectivity is this that we need to discuss -- rather than avoid by yielding to another’s adeptness to becloud the issue by couching anti-objectivity within stylistic verbiage like "subjective-inclusiveness experience"?" I don’t mean that to be caustic but don’t know how else to put it — restrained by space and time.

<2.4>
Jaspers avoided Collin’s attempt to hitch him to his thought trains. Jaspers avoids biological naturalism, that ism, and the sainthood of Thomas, that other ism. He discusses the question but avoids being caught in his opponent’s way of thinking. He laboriously avoids getting into "only incidentals" that once latched unto results in endless struggle, for in those "diversions from what really matters" one has "unknowingly already recognized the substance of the opponent as true". And that is part of my answer to Muller’s thought experiment -- until the questioner exhibits an understanding of the forces behind the forefront. Those two personages in your thought experiment are nailed to a position where the harvested forces of naturalism and supernaturalism have been well hidden and stored out of sight but yet being used as cannon or canon fodder behind the balls (bullets).

<2.5>
And that leads to my third question: Could Mr. Muller resubmit the thought experiment with more of the hidden forces in the foreground and still make the matter intelligible ? First iron out the wrinkles, like, reword the thought experiment to correspond with his item <3>: "Religion has developed as a response to the need for overall stabilization of thinking …" and relate it to overt and covert terrorism in terms of current and past inquisitions, i.e., relating it to the religious conditions (theocracies) he imposes upon the thought experiment.

<3>
In Mr. Muller’s final footnote he demonstrates a misunderstanding of the sewing machine incident of my early memory. I hope it was not intentional. Of course to me it appears he seemed to belittle it so he could say that the situation was not objective in any sense. Moreover my point was not to seek sympathy for the recall was partially due to the insignificance of the momentary discomfort comparable to the spank of a newborn. The point involved vague and vivid consciousness as objective, the place of the psyche, the feeling states, with information about guilt, parental guidance, and some linguistic information. Mr. Muller points at only what could be and was used to my discredit and to appeal to a certain class of readership. My apologies if that is an incorrect assessment, for it might simply be that one lacks the experiences of such recollections. One could hope it’s something innocent like that.

<4>
To address the request to correct Mr. Muller’s deliberations about my understanding of what Moses wrote (see C12 <5>) it would necessitate repeating his comment and that would have the didactic effect of repeating something never said, but the repetition — repetition being a good or bad teacher — would draw attention to the refutation of something never asserted. To me it seems Mr. Muller has verbalized something in an accusatorial style. I simply ask that references be cited showing I’ve done more than express respect for this early writer (and I’ve even warned against bibliolatry). We need to talk about the hidden forces within Mr. Muller’s request to "correct me if I’m wrong".

<5>
But if Mr. Muller in item <7>) is asking for not only the interpretation of what he has constructed in the way of a thought experiment but also what the statement might be that the "Pope" and type of "President" of Iraq must agree to, I think the thing has been philosophically revealed with some inspiration coming from historic events. It reminds me of how once the President of Iraq (Babylon) had decided to censure (kill) the wise men because none could tell him what he had dreamed. Daniel (the name appears to have meant "God is Judge" renamed Belteshazzar meaning possibly the Lord of Babylon’s leader) while in Babylon relieved the President of that mass-murder pledge by giving him something to replace the suppressed dream. He told the President what the dream was he’d forgotten. The statement Muller wants signed could be this: Mankind’s derivation is to be understood best on the basis of biological naturalism. The interpretation of this signed statement amounts to a nihilistic "have at it guys." The final question to Mr. Muller is: Is that the statement to be signed and the expected consequences, if not, what is the statement ?

<6>
With regard to Mr. Muller’s question regarding the conflicts to be avoided in the next hundred years, I hope the force behind the question was not to get a fanatical-like quote from the bible. One could repeat Jaspers’ solutions itemized in the Future of Mankind. One could take lessons from the Donner Party or Easter Island. Our populated world is getting very small and who and how some will be weeded out -- cousin eating cousin -- remains to be seen. One could wonder if the philosophers will be the first to go, and the scientifically empowered the first to leave for other domains. Also there’s another determinate as hard to predict as the weather, such as what we are experiencing with tsunamis, hurricanes, and earthquakes. I’d hope we’d not give in to the nihilism of a zero-derivation or a fatalism of an absolutized historical derivation.

**************************************

In response to Wood, above.

If you want me to accept further communications from you for posting in the Karl Jaspers Forum, I need a GUARANTEE from you that you will

"not use insulting or ad hominem language from now on".

Do you see fit to sign this statement as is ? Please answer "yes" if you will provide this guarantee; other answers I will take to mean that you will not provide it.

**************************************