[MD] The tetra lemma

[Ian Glendinning]

Agreed Marsha,

Yes, no and all of the above, is a good way to state it.

But that answer makes logical arguments hard to construct, the kind of
clear arguments some people are looking for. As soon as you have
arguments with multiple steps, each with that kindof answer, the
explosion of possibilities is enornormous - the waters get muddied,
which is why things look like chaotic "arising patterns" rather than
simple (ie simplistic) causation.

Without simple "if this, then that, therefore" linear type arguments,
one thing leading to another, some people are very uncomfortable.

An alternative way to look at it, is that if the answer is "yes, no,
and all of the above", then the original question was not a good one,
or maybe started from some bad premise, which is the way I tend to
look at these problems. The SOMist premise of intellectual argument IS
THE problem.
Ian

On 8/8/08, MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Glendinning"
> <ian.glendinning at gmail.com>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] The tetra lemma
>
>
> > DMB,
> > ... great writing like ... Marsha too
> > "You not recognizing it (at this point), doesn't mean that logic isn't
> there."
> >
> > The logic you're looking for is simply not "logic as we know it".
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
>
>
> Affirming negatives?  Non-affirming negatives?  How about yes, no and all of
> the above?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>