Re: Well OT Re: What do you think is necessary in order to have an excellentcomposition?

["Krispen Hartung" <khartung@cableone.net>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "andy butler" <akbutler@tiscali.co.uk>
>
> So if you can show that statement to be a pseudo statement then you have 
> some logic going.

I'm not going to take your bait, Andy. Based on our past discussions on 
the 
list, I know this will
go nowhere and fill everyone's mailbox up.  We obviously disagree here, 
and 
there is no point
belaboring the topic to death with a "you prove it...no, you proof it 
pissing match". This is a topic
that has multiple opinions and theories behind it.  I subscribe to one, 
and 
you seemingly subscribe to
another. That's how the game works.  That is perfectly natural and 
acceptable.

I will rest my case with the comment that there is indeed a philosophy 
that 
implies any statement
with a term like "good" in it, is devoid of literal/factual meaning. There 
is no reason to debate
the existence of this philosophy or its opposing theories...you can read 
up 
on it if you are
interested...or not. If you want the logic behind the theory, read the 
source material because there
no way such a theory of this sort can be described adequately in a 
discussion group.  We have to
rely on the high level descriptions of the theories. If you understand the 
theory and premises,
then you will understand the points I made. You aren't expected to agree 
with the conclusions,
just understand that given the premises of the theory, the conclusion that 
evaluative statement are
meaningless follows (this doesn't mean it is true, however).

If you described a theory whose premises suggested that evaluative 
statements were factually
meaningful, I would likely accept the logic, but not the truth of the 
conclusion...because one can understand
why a conclusion follows from a set of premises without believing in the 
conclusion (because premises
themselves require yet another set of arguments to be substantiated). But 
I 
wouldn't ask you to describe
that whole logic here...that's impossible.

We could dive into the details of the premises and foundations of the 
theory 
offline, if you like. I have
several sources I could recommend, as well as a number of papers I've 
written or published on the
topic.

Kris