[MD] SOLAQI, Kant's TITs, chaos, and the S/I distinction

[ian glendinning]

Hi DMB, (Dan mentioned)
I feed you the lines you throw 'em back ... "face saving".
Magic :-)

Have you never heard of the concept of being "self-effacing".
I do try, even if you don't appreciate it.

One man's "equivocation" is another's "balance". Yawn.
(Dan got the same point. Bo's attempt at SOLAQI is consistent with a
need for S/I level clarification, even if the SOLAQI is not itself
correct. It's history, it wasn't me that raised it.)

Do you have any specific relevant point or just a personal dig again ?
There was some "principle of opposition" left dangling earlier, if I
recall correctly ?
Ian

On 1/2/07, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ian said:
> (I said only entertained Dan's model as acceptance that, whilst it clearly
> wasn't right, it was an indication that something was also not right with
> the original basic statement of the model - a holding
> position, as I said in the sentence you quote.)
>
> dmb says:
> You think you are making subtle points and being sensitive about the
> contingency of human truths and I think you are merely confused. Its just a
> holding position you entertained even though you know its wrong as a way to
> indicate error in the orignal model? What? As I see it, that's just a
> face-saving load of confused equivocation. That's just you trying to have it
> both ways at the same time, as usual. Apparently, I don't want to let you
> get away with it this time.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page
> www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701
>
> 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/
>