SUO: Re: Topic :> Definition Of Integrity
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Topic :> Integrity 2. <JA, 06 Dec 2003, 05>
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Matthew,
This will be some of that plain speaking that I know you so admire.
I will be reading a version of the Pragmatic Maxim into the record
later on, but here is One Plainsman's Laconic Verse for those who
prefer to register the gist of it in succinctly well-chosen words.
Practical speech and thought demand a positive connection between
Words and Deeds. It has historically proven to be something of a
sheer futility to get the Active Ingredients of this nostrum past
the blood-brain barrier of your average philosopher, but I'm sure
that you know what I mean. For instance, a person who makes an
Agreement and then proceeds to look for ways of violating that
Agreement, is a person who is ipso facto prima facie suspect
of not knowing the practical meaning of the term "Agreement".
And that's what practical engineering-type semantics means
to me. For yet another instance, a person who administers
an election on a Procedure Process that is explicitly and
most notoriously advertized as being intended to make the
Procedures of this Group more Open and so more Trustworthy
to all concerned, and then proceeds to look for ways to take
that Procedure Process into closed door caucus or private cartel,
as the case may be, is a person who is ipso facto prima facie to be
suspected of not knowing the plain ordinary meaning of the term "Open".
So, how can you wonder that I persist in questying you and others about
the meanings, to you and them, of such basic, plain, and practical words?
How In Deed,
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/mighty/history.html
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o