Thie^.n A'c va` ca'c Tam gia'c

[Aiviet Nguyen <aiviet@cat.syr.edu>]

HI Anh Vu Hong Lam, Tran Minh Tien and others,

     I do believe that inspite of your high level discussion in Phylosophy
Thie^.n A'c is there. The best way to see this truth is to invite Prof 
Cao Xuan Huy, Kant, Einstein,... to have a break. 
    I admitted that I learn a lot of good things from both of you. But the
implication of a good thing can be false. First, Prof. Cao Xuan Huy 
talked of abstarct categories that is universal over space-time, so 
THie^.n A'c is not there. The same thing happens to Physics Math and my 
C++ codes. But in any social activity, Thie^.n A'c is there, always.
The activity to say that " There is no Thie^.n A'c" itself also defines a 
Thie^.n A'c value depending in the case it was said.
..

   OK, let us look at Tua^n Tu+? "Ba?n A'c and Kho^?ng Tu+? "ba?n thie^.n".
Bible, Marx also believe in "Ba?n thie^.n". However, I think this is also 
the case of triangle dilemma ( I mentioned it in Entropy talk) that lead 
to most of debates. The set of triangle is superset of the set of rectangular
triangles but the set of rectangular triangles properties is super set of 
the triangle properties. In almost all comparisions there is always some 
tade-off, and people can take two different measurs to say quite 
contradictive things. 

  Concerning A'c Thie^.n, I was in panic when read in Willy Drand series 
that the ancient times people wre so cruel and agressive. The 
civilization of Assyry, Egypt, China, Roma were base on the cruelty. 
There is no sign of better men in those ancient time. But at the same 
time the social structures were simpler and so there wre more Thie^.n.
So I believe that Tua^n Tu+? was talking of A'c of individuals and 
Kho^?ng tu+? was talking about Thie^.n of social structure or value.

  I don't know how to compare an annibalist in the ancient time with 
an intelligent who had designed a killing machine.