++> Inspired by Frank Masingill To David Martorana comments
 ++> on the poet-philosopher, Parmenides
 
 FM>> Parmenides, of course, doesn't finally answer the question but he
 FM>> cogitated on Truth and Delusion and was told that the NOT IS
 FM>> unthinkable.
 
 DM>> As long as "unthinkable" is NOT presented as impossible; just an
 DM>> observation of limits to the present state of human thinking .....not
 DM>> some finality!  Reversing common notions, we might even wager "NOT IS"
 DM>> as a future possibility, even if never been before.
 
     The above four lines do well on defining much of what
     philosophy is all about      ....yes!
 
 FM> Your response is on a different wave length, David.  Parmenides was
 FM> not in the realm of the progression of watching steam under pressure
 FM> from a tea kettle and conceiving a steam engine or watching water
 FM> rise in a bathtub when a body is in it and measuring the weight of
 FM> metals.
 
     I don't recall presenting him in the role of scientist!
 
 FM> He's reflecting on being, truth and delusion.  Not the same thing.
 FM> I certainly didn't use the term "unthinkable" to reflect a "Descarte"
 FM> type of Parmenides.
 
     I'm willing to grant him retropoetic license.
 
 DM>> Unless I've missed something, what has the "NOT IS" to do with the
 DM>> questionable "truth" tensions between philosophy, and 
heology/ideology?
 DM>> Philosophy is exploration searching for truth which it must NEVER find
 DM>> as that would contaminate it with ideology ....yes?  Also, a "NOT IS"
 DM>> (if possible or ever understandable) might well be (likely be) an issue
 DM>> of future science ....especially as synthetic neural expansions develop
 DM>> beyond their present infancies.
 
 FM> Who dictated that Philosophy "must never find truth?"
 
     Who indeed? You do push reality-truth around in your plate
     like leftover mashed potatoes.
 
 FM> It CAN never uncover the total reality because philosophy is
 FM> indulged in by human minds that are parts of the reality with
 FM> only the perspective of participation.  A great deal of truth is
 FM> discovered and much is agreed upon.  It just cannot be paraded
 FM> for the full structure of reality for reasons I've given over
 FM> and over again.  The only truth we have is found WITHIN that
 FM> perspective of participation.
 
     Perhaps!
     ^^^^^^^^    As a philosopher I must not adopt that version of
     (percentage derived) truth as absolute; another option *likely*
     to come along into clarity as our insight input expands....yes?
 
 Perhaps "MUST" is too strong a word- better "SHOULD never find truth"
 or "CAN only find some percentage of truth" (assuming at least half)" or
 "embarrassed to find too much of truth"  or as you've said "CAN never
 uncover the total reality of truth (still assuming at least half to
 throw it on the better side).
 
   Is it not possible that "a love of wisdom", and ITS quest, might
   bring one close *enough* to "a" truth, that it claim a humble-
   "YES! behold a truth".....?  I realize that BIG TRUTH as a thingling,
   cannot even be defined to everyone's smile. I, of course, prefer
   TRUTH as a lady Goddess, symbol-ish OR true!
 
 NOTE: .....Parmenides:
       I realize that the other participants on this ECHO immediately
 understand what you mean when you pepper your commentary with friends
 from past, so I do appreciate your tolerance at my kicking up. That
 said, I find employing Mr. Parmenides to aid in making a point, unclear.
 That his Southern Italian poetry of the 480's BC was undoubtedly
 considered great in its time, it begs for rational in our 20th century
 intellectual and scientific setting. His primary theme that "nothing
 changes" ....."that change is delusion"  seems not to even reflect your
 own complex set of views. I would not downplay his conclusions in
 consideration of his time and circumstance to muse in, but to
 transport his (specific) insight contributions into our time-setting,
 is at best, some awkward words of witness. Also, his INSISTENCE about
 "change" does sort of nudge him into being a bit ideologous (unless
 that was expressed during his poetry period). Goodness, even Hegal had
 a time finding a nice opposit grin to fit him into, "antithesis".
     ..............YES! I, a budding sophist, know, my views are in
 need of further polishing ......perhaps even MUCH further .
                            =_
                          (-0Q-) ... Dave ?
                              |
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------