Re: From Knowledge Animals to Information Beings

Onar Aam (onar@HSR.NO)
Wed, 24 May 1995 20:21:53 +0100


>Among the conditions which I have noted in Onar's
>writings are the following, any one of which disqualifies a theory as
>science:
> - spurious similarities
> - research by literary interpretation
> - irrefutable hypotheses
> - refusal to revise.
>To these might be added idiosyncratic language that fails to support
>continuing communication with shared terms of meaning.

I'm perfectly aware that my animation of language ignite some people
which feel that their culture is being messed with. That's human. We defend what
we cherish. I feel that I am a very lucky man that is born with the ability to
surf on language and I want to share that with people who dare to follow. Very
many people get dizzy from the joyride, and I respect that. It would however be
naive of me to expect these people to respect my play with their language. But
those who do manage to follow the wild ride often have an unforgettable
experience and I'm sorry that this animation of different perspectives appears t
o
you as "spurious similarities". As to the other points: it is interesting to see

how feelings and prejudice may strongly affect people's conclusions and
attitudes. I could of course explain things and clear up misunderstandings, but
in the light of your current attitudes I believe that that would be fruitless.
Just two questions before I stop. 1) Do you consider your own analysis of my wor
k
scientific? 2) Do you consider John L. Casti's work on science scientific?

Onar.