Wendy,
Congruence can incorporate the 'natural' discourse that communities can
have as they evolve and learn... it can also incorporate apparent
incongruent but acceptable facts... finally and most importantly it
establishes unbiased foundations for discourse which any member can use to
validate / prove 'impose' claims (independent of politics and power
games)....
Claiming to hold the truth/right while also claiming this could be an
illusion differs from claiming that no one can hold the truth in that the
firsts acknowledges the facts creating a sustainable system with viable
resolution avenues while the second just establishes a paradox... For the
expressed truth that 'no one can hold the truth', claims to hold the
truth, this is contradicted by the statement ...
"a locally situated/defined and historically contingent view of congruency
which will allow for the changing of perceptions of what is and isn't
congruent within (a) certain field(s) of thought" eliminates the notion of
having an absolute standard to evaluate claims, this easily lead to
establish that 'what is' to be 'what is not' creates an illusion which may deceive
and enslave us... My proposal accepts the fact that the notion of
'absolute truth' and 'relative truth' may both be illusions that deceive
and enslave us, though holding on to the notion of a 'relative truth'
leads to deception in the case that the 'absolute truth' does exist.
Holding on to the notion of an 'absolute truth' can be maintained even
when only the a 'relative truth' exits because the 'relative truth' can be
the notion of having an 'absolute truth'... Besides I much rather be bound
within a sustainable, desirable and congruent 'fantasy' than a
never-ending nightmare...
Cordially,
Esteban
____________________________________________________________________________
For your protection, this e-mail message has been scanned for viruses.
Visit us at http://www.neoris.com/