[MD] Reet and the Weakest Link

[MarshaV]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Reet and the Weakest Link


>
> dmb said:
> I don't get it. How is a logical contradiction only apparent or illusory 
> and how does it exist in perception. Leaving aside Ham's essentialism, I 
> really don't understand what the tetralemma means. I'm not even sure where 
> the logic is located in it. Break it down for me, will you?
>
> Ron replied:
> OR -experience does not arise from logic, logic arises from experience.
>
> dmb says:
> Right. I agree with this conclusion but I understand it in terms of John 
> Dewey's philosophy and in terms of the MOQ. What I don't understand is how 
> we get from the tetralemma to that conclusion. It looks something like a 
> five-part dilemma where each premise is related to the others, but I don't 
> see how they add up.
>
> Also, it feels like being dropped into the middle of a conversation, like 
> it is a response to Aristotle's logic. But I don't see how the form of 
> this argument works. I don't see how the logic works, how one progresses 
> through the five steps. Without some kind of context or explanation, each 
> premise looks like naked assertion.
>
> Can you walk me through it? How do you get to the conclusion from there?
>
> Marsha, would you care to take a stab at explaining it?
>
> Thanks.


RMP,

If only I could explain in a coherent (Hi Squonk!) manner.  It has something 
to do with non-affirming negatives, but I don't have it clearly.  Maybe Ron 
can explain.  If he does, I'd like to know why he so rejected by question 
about opposite-from-non-beer.  All of a sudden he's a tetralemma whiz-kid. 
That's okay.  I'll take help from whoever can offer it.  I am so beyond my 
knowledge base it's frightening.  Movement, even at a snail's pace, is okay 
with me.

Marsha