[MD] Intellection (formerly Democracy)

[Ham Priday]

Hi Craig --


> [Ham, previously]:
> Logic defines the truth or falsity of fundamental
> principles that can be inferred from demonstrated experience...
> But the principles themselves are conceptual inferences
> drawn from experience.

[Craig]:
> This seems backwards to me.  Take the Law of the
> Excluded Middle: p or not-p (e.g., 'it is raining' or
> 'it is not raining'.)
> It not like we experience rain, then no rain, then rain,
> then no rain, but never anything else, so conclude that
> it must be raining or not raining.
> Rather logic is imposed on our experience of rain &
> no rain in order to make sense of it.

Right, it could be snowing or haling or fogging up.  But the validity of a 
proposition is binary: it's either true or false.  I assume that's what your 
example demonstrates.  It's the "backwards" objection that has me puzzled. 
My guess is that you view a principle as a universal truth, whereas I see it 
as an intellectual construct.  That is, WE impose our intellect on 
experience in order to make logical sense of it (as in a working principle). 
But before this, we impose "being" on Value to experience it, so that we 
have a relational existent from which to draw logical conclusions.  Our 
intellectualizing of experience follows our "objectivization" of it.

Does that make sense to you?

--Ham