[MD] spanner in the works

[John Carl]

Oh dear, I'll have to search.  I shoulda kept it tagged appropriately.  My
bad, Matt.  I'll see if I can resurrect.

Might have to wait till I get home to my main machine, dig through browser
history.


But hey, even just looking yeilds high quality stuff from the past -

Further proof that good answers aren't good enough to satisfy a stubborn
mind:


*Paul Turner*
*Mon Dec 5 01:50:10 PST 2005*

Paul:  I'm not just talking about thinking or intelligence but the explicit
discipline of logic.  I maintain that prior to around the 4th century BC
logic as a discipline simply did not exist.  This is part of my argument
that rationality is an adequate definition of the intellectual level where
rationality is not restricted to adhering to the premises of a
subjective/objective metaphysics.

Rationality, to me, is the assumption that a belief is true by virtue of its
justificatory relationships with other beliefs and not solely by virtue of
the relationship of the belief to the believer or to the putative source of
the belief e.g. the Gods, which is the mark of a purely social level belief.
The relationships which justify intellectual formulations are those of valid
inference, algebra, and geometric axioms, which were all defined for the
first time in China (Mohism, Jiuzhang suanshu), India (Nyaya-darshana,
Aryabhata) and Greece (Aristotle, Euclid, Diophantus) somewhere between 4th
Century BC - 2nd Century AD.

As far as the west is concerned, this fits with your requirement that the
intellectual level started in ancient Greece but has the benefit of allowing
for an eastern intellectual level which has followed a different path yet
still shares the rationality common to both.  It also avoids this nonsense
about the MOQ having "an intellectual shell whilst it is alive in another
level" and other attempts to have your (fudge) cake and eat it.



On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Matt Kundert <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com
> wrote:

>
> Hey John,
>
> I was curious: the original post in this thread had the
> excavation of a dialogue between Paul and Bo, of which I
> think I was mentioned.  Where was that from?
>
> Matt
>
> p.s.  Bo's response about the "Kafkaesque farce" of most of
> all of his interlocutors being unable to understand him just
> confirms my feeling that _nobody_ has yet to understand
> through and through what Bo is talking about--even people
> who like his ideas, and wish to use them--but this is due
> almost entirely to the conflicting signals Bo gives off
> constantly.  If there is a coherent vision of philosophy,
> which I do think there quite possibly might be, it is trapped
> in Bo's head (and likely in his mother-tongue), because
> what spills out in writing is nearly impossible to thread all
> together, from beginning to end (the megalomania not
> helping much, though I certainly can't cast the first stone).
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your
> inbox.
>
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1
> 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/md/archives.html
>