[MD] Where does logic itself belong inside the MOQ?

[MarshaV]

Bo,

Changing the subject doesn't get you off the hook so again:



Please state which of my statements you are calling  
"Marshas woolly nonsense."  At lease give me an 
opportunity to defend my position.  


Marsha   







On Jan 2, 2010, at 9:20 AM, skutvik at online.no wrote:

> All
> 
> 2 Jan.:
> 
> I received this from Andre
> :
>> Quality subordinate to 1+1=2? Where do you get that from Bodvar?
>> Quality is not subordinate to anything. Rather Quality has 1+1=2.
>> Quality is direct experience, the non-intellectual cutting edge. Please
>> do not reduce Quality to some logical sequence of events. 
> 
> Please give me hell on this point, I'm happy to be corrected. Will 
> have to think some more on this issue.
> 
> Marsha wrote the same day:
> 
>> I have been haunted by something I read a while ago:  All knowledge is
>> to some degree false because it is to some degree incomplete.  
>> Wouldn't this make knowledge both true and false? 
> 
> Knowledge in intellect-as-SOM's ultimate "true,objective" sense is not 
> tenable, but we must not throw the baby out with the water, i.e. 
> declare intellect-as-a-Q-level's immense S/O value to be worthless. 
> This is the effect I fear from the "MOQ-an-intellectual-pattern" faction, 
> namely that the MOQ is a "better intellectual idea" which is it isn't, it's 
> no intellectual pattern but something that has departed from intellect-
> as.SOM and transformed into its own 4th static level  I hope you still 
> subscribe to the SOL.   
> 
>> And this morning I read that Feyerbend called the laws of formal logic
>> naive.  Margolis says much about adding Indeterminate to the bipolar
>> truth-values: True or False, but I'm finding his book very difficult
>> because he mentions dozens of philosophers (briefly stating their
>> argument) I have never heard of, and who seem to have some professional
>> stake in this game.  But I wonder that DQ is present in every event and
>> it is indeterminate.  Hmmm.
> 
> But this is something else. Logic through which "gates" experience 
> must pass to be perceived (the simplest of which is 1+1=2) cannot be 
> violated or declared "naive". Understand? Intellect's science may 
> make a lot of "findings" that later shows to be wrong, but 1+1=2 will 
> never be found wrong  This is what has begun to worry me of late. 
> Where does logic itself belong in the MOQ? 
> 
> Happy to hear your (all) opinion.
> 
> Bodvar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

  
_______________________________________________________________________
   
Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...