[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Darryl_P --

Is it safe to say we've reached a point of divergence in our axioms, ie. that I assume such problems (based on competing, but not contradictory values) have a right answer (for each person), and you assume they don't necessarily (because the whole mishmash of competing values can easily simulate a set of contradictory values, say)?


[/ QUOTE ]

To begin with, I'm not setting up any axioms here. I'm just trying to describe how I see things actually working.

" that I assume such problems (based on competing, but not contradictory values) have a right answer (for each person), and you assume they don't "

I'm saying each person comes to his best judgement on how to balance all the competing principles involved. I prefer to call it his "judgement" rather than his "right answer".

"and you assume they don't necessarily (because the whole mishmash of competing values can easily simulate a set of contradictory values, say)"

No. I'm not saying anything about them simulating a set of contradictory principles. If the principles are contradictory then like David points out, all conclusions follow logically. As I said in the highfalootin thread, the process by which the person arrives at his judgement is really beyond our understanding because it involves not only an intractable complex of competing principles but the unique life experiences of the individual person.

That's not to say you can't sway his judgement with logical argument. After all, your argument then becomes part of his life experience as well. But you might sway his judgement in other ways too. Like with a good song, or a nice work of art. Or a compelling movie. Or an intriguing mystery novel. etc.