[MD] The Heinous Quadrilemma

[Adrie Kintziger]

Maybe this can be of help to further avoid the munchausen trilemma.

I arrived at my in a dynamical way(smiley)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/imagine/201003/einstein-creative-thinking-music-and-the-intuitive-art-scientific-imagination



2016-11-07 19:40 GMT+01:00 david <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>:

>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Moq_Discuss <moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org> on behalf of
> mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net>
> Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2016 9:13 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Heinous Quadrilemma
>
> dmb,
>
>
> >
> >
> > dmb had said:
> >
> > One say that "Pure experience" or Quality "logically precedes this
> > distinction" just as one can say sleeping logically precedes waking.
> >  In both cases, logic doesn't exist in that first stage but logic
> > does obtain when we start thinking about it or talking about it. The
> >  logic can also be expressed as a little argument: Since concepts
> > are  derived from experience, the experiential material from which
> > they  are derived must come before the concepts.
> >
>
>
> Tuukka repled to dmb:
>
> Unlike Quality, "sleeping" is not an undefined concept. But you seem
> to imply that logic doesn't exist when people sleep. Firstly, not
> true. Some people have seen correct formal statements in their dreams.
> My high school maths teacher told me Ramanujan did this. Secondly, not
> relevant. Waking does not logically follow sleeping, it follows
> sleeping temporally.
>
> As for you little argument, well, I don't see the point. I'm fine with
> the idea that concepts are derived from experience and that the
> experiential material from which they are derived must come before the
> concepts. But I'm saying the concepts are not deduced from the
> experiential material. They also do not logically follow from it.
> Deduction and logic is what you do when you already have a bunch of
> concepts.
>
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> You've missed the point entirely so I'll try a more direct approach.
>
>
> You're saying that concepts can't logically follow from pure experience
> because there is no logic in pure experience. The "logic" characterizes es
> the RELATION BETWEEN experience and concepts but you have been mistakenly
> using "logic" as if it were supposed to characterize pure experience. The
> same confusion occurred in your response to the sleeping-waking analogy,
> wherein you tried to characterize sleep as containing logic. Again, the
> logic describes the RELATION BETWEEN sleep and waking, i.e. you can't wake
> up unless you're sleeping.
>
> Understanding an idea BEFORE criticizing it is also a logical necessity,
> by the way.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
> moq.org
> Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and
> provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current
> paradigms allow
>
>
> 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