Went here http://condition.org/godel_.htm and picked up this snippet.
For any given set of 'consistent and unambiguous axioms' comprised to underlie 'resolving a human condition' -as opposed to 'working a system of human experience', there will always be possible some set of unprovable statements -potentially disintegrating perceptions of situations- which one is in fact, not 'bound to accept', but which one does hominid-being accept with neither need nor provability. Changes intended to bring such unprovables 'properly' into the system can only but result in 'a different set of (pseudo)axioms' which in turn can only but conjure up another set of unprovables. -It is only by hewing to developing phenomenology and to that alone that a relatively integral humanity can more or less knowledgeably and properly 'expedite melioration of a human condition' -and that only heuristically so.
So, that's clear enough |dizzy| |
