[MD] Annotations to LC

[Andre Broersen]

Tuukka:
This is rhetoric, not dialectic.

Andre:
Ah, so it’s about the rhetoricians against the dialecticians is it? Ah…I thought so.
Well Tuukka, ZMM has a very interesting episode about that confrontation. You must realize that he latter came out of the former. This is what Phaedrus argues: “ Dialectic, which is the parent of logic, came itself from rhetoric. Rhetoric is in turn the child of the myths and poetry of ancient Greece. That is so historically, and that is so by any application of common sense.The poetry and the myths are the response of a pre-historic people to the universe  around them made on the basis of Quality. It is Quality, not dialectic which is the generator of everything we know” (ZMM p 385).

And it is important to realize that what is necessary to see is that" part of the landscape, inseparable from it, which must be understood , is a figure the middle of it, sorting sand into piles. To see the landscape without seeing this figure is not to see the landscape at all. To reject that part of the Buddha that attends to the analysis of motorcycles is to miss the Buddha entirely” (ZMM p 76).

And that is exactly what you are doing Tuukka, refusing to see this figure…all you see is banners saying Peano formality, concluding that something is “  Not logically consistent,  The Heinous Buadrilemma, dialetheistic gobbledygook, and god knows what other incomprehensible many-syllabic words you let float past.  

And you continue:” As if logic could be used in a situation that precedes the existence of logic'.

“ I'm not confused about the relation between SOM and the MOQ”.

Andre:
And on and on you go Tuukka. It seems you are not at all confused about the relation between what??? The MoQ you do not grasp and it appears as though you are thoroughly confused and hence stuck in SOM. And I think that is because you have never confronted a living Sophist….only dead ones. (ZMM p 384)