[MD] Indeterminate?

[MarshaV]

Adrie,

Would that be that dmb was "correct" in stating that RMP was ONLY addressing the law of gravity?  Does your pdf address that?  Because as far as I am concerned there is no other legitimate issue on the table.  Dmb's projections, misrepresentations, sarcasm, irony, parody and insults are not my problem.


Marsha 


On Apr 7, 2013, at 11:45 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <parser666 at gmail.com> wrote:

> http://www.andrewmbailey.com/pvi/IndetVague.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> for marsha ,very strong article on the semantic vagueness of indeteminancy
> the author is not a bullshitter.
> 
> If you read it correctly , Marsha,you will be able to see that Mr Buchanan
> wrote a very correct article
> 
> Adrie
> 
> 
> 
> 2013/4/7 MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> 
>> 
>> Hi x-man,
>> 
>> On Apr 7, 2013, at 10:36 AM, X Acto wrote:
>> 
>>> Marsha:
>>> How about "It's all a ghost,...".  Isn't the law of non-contradiciton
>> one of the laws of logic?  "Ghosts and more ghosts."
>>> 
>>> Ron:
>>> What gives those ghosts meaning is their neccessity in the immediate now
>> of experience. The law of non-contradiction
>>> is the first rule of meaning, you re either more prone to  act apon it
>> or less.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> If all of reality is simply a ghost of the human imagination, how does
>> the explanation account for the wherefore of human
>>> imagination?
>>> The human imagination is the response of an organism to its environment,
>> but what do we mean by "organism" and
>>> "environment" or should we be looking at the word between them,
>> "reponse" .
>>> 
>>> A ghost could only be a response to dynamic quality, lets go a bit
>> further and say it is a response OF dynamic quality.
>>> 
>>> Well that renders those ghosts has having something of the nature of
>> dynamic quality, and if anything should be
>>> gained by the position "static quality is dynamic quality" is that those
>> ghosts are about as real as the term"real" can mean,
>>> no?
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> If RMP can say that it's all ghosts and human imagination and also state
>> that Isaac Newton is a very good ghost, than I can say static patterns are
>> all illusion and also state that they are conventionally meaningful.
>> 
>> There are examples where the law of non-contradiction does not hold, you
>> might reconsider if it should be called the first rule of meaning.  I
>> wouldn't consider it the first rule of meaning.  And even to the saying
>> that things have to agree with common sense, we can call up Einstein's
>> "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
>> When David Harding asked me if the patterns of the Intellectual Level
>> matter, I answered "Yes."  I believe they do matter.  So yes, those ghosts
>> (illusions) are about as conventionally real as "real" can mean.  Of course
>> that's if you NEED the kind of certainty a word like "real" suggests.
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 
>> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> parser
> 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