[MD] The other side of Value

[118]

Hi Ron,
You are correct in that I do not understand much of your post.  This is my fault.  If you could direct me to some articles which present the history of the arguments you refer to, I would be most grateful.

I agree with your presentation of meaning as a foundation for logic.  I have said as much.  As such, it goes deeper than words.  This would agree with Ham's Sensibiliy.

A sonnet provides meaning through this area, that is, that it "feels" right.  There does not need to be rhetorical logic in a sonnet.  That was all that I was implying.


Mark

On Jun 5, 2011, at 7:07 AM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

> [Mark]
> Nothingness is that which divides.  Where is that which divides good
> and evil?  Can you point to it?  Does it exist?  This is where Ron has
> difficulty.  He is trying to create a dualist world with divisions.
> However, he cannot himself point to that which divides.  If the
> divider does not exist, we are left with a monist world, not matter
> how many opposites we can imagine.
> 
> Ron:
> Mark, there is so much confusion about what I'm talking about that I'm not
> sure if I can untangle it and communicate my meaning accurately
> to you. So all apologies if I do not pursue the dialog, you said some 
> interesting things regarding limit and number however.
> You would understand the difficulties if you took the time to 
> understand the history of the philosphical problems being
> discussed.
> 
>> 
> 
> 
> [Mark]
> Any logic is " word trickery", and Ron should know this.  The sophists
> based their expression on word trickery.  Lawyers sound awfully
> logical unless you are on the other side, then one must beware of
> trickery.  If Ron can explain in terms of a logical premise, such
> explanation is immediately suspect since it relies on assuming a
> starting assumption to be Truth.  What is it that makes such an
> assumption the true Ground to build on?  Everything built from it
> stands as if on quicksand.
> 
> Ron:
> First of all logic is predicated on experience more importantly an
> agreement of experience and what we are properly speaking
> about is not logic or truth but meaning. The best explanations
> are those that prove themselves good by way of experience.
> They provide the greatest meaning. 
> Hams explanation is unclear and discontinouse not to mention
> posessing a crucial contradiction of terms that has huge consequences
> in his theory. 
> This makes it difficult for him in his rhetorical arguements.Talk about theories
> being built on quicksand!
> Logic is based on meaning not truth so what I condemn Ham for is not that his
> theory is true or not but that it has little meaning.
> 
>> 
>> Ron:
>>> 
>>> That absolute source being "the good "as primary reality, whatever exists
>>> indeed is a reduction, perceptually, of "the good".  Perception is the
>>> limit
>>> and to limit is to carve meaning from experience. To make that which is
>>> unintelligible, intelligible is clearly the greatest good.  It accounts
>>> for beauty
>>> in experience and why it is better to be wise than not.
> 
> [Mark]
> To "make intelligible" is not necessarily good.  It can also be used
> for coercion and extreme evil.  There are many ways to create the
> intelligible.  The stars in the heavens can be made into
> constellations, which can be considered intelligible, but they detract
> from the beauty of the sky by omitting most of it.  Once we claim to
> be working to make good, we are to be feared.  Most beauty is not made
> intelligible.  A sonnet is made up mostly of unintelligible beauty.
>> 
> Ron:
> What makes the sonnet good Mark. What makes it beautiful?
> the relation to experience , obviously the sonnet was successful
> in making the experience intelligible. Or else it would not be understood
> as beautiful. It would not have any meaning.
> 
> 
> ............................
> 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