--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John,
> Le 03-févr.-06, à 23:45, John M a écrit :
> > --- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just compare past systems of 'logic' - say back to
> > 3000 years, about "the same nature (world)" and
> >you can agree that ALL OF THEM cannot be true.
> I agree. I would say HALF of them are true. My point
> is that we can test it.
Bruno, You missed my point: whatever you want to test
is still WITHIN the - I condone - HALF which you deem 
true. But it is perfectly circular: you test our human

logic/understanding within human logic/understanding. 
The caveman 200,000 years ago used the same (?) for 
establishing our mental ways with a lot less empirical
cognitive inventory for use. And we still don't know
all (understatement). Ignorance without knowing what 
we don't know - unstructurably. 

> > ignorance about what?
> about ourselves and the rest. Already about numbers.
> > We have to know "about it" to
> > structure it.

Could Columbus ever 
'structure' the No-American West-Coast region when he 
thought he is in Asia? 
> Bruno:
> And it is very hard to do so, but in our west, there
> was an Old School 
> discussing the point from Pythagoras to the late
> neoplatonist. I think 
> the peak is Plotinus. But in the east: same
> discussions with different 
> words.
> Today, we have the math for listening to machines
> and angels, belonging 
> to vast lattices of angels (non-machines).

> > Solipsism can be humiliating: "I cannot be
> right".<G>
> > #rd person is not denied in my position: it is
> just
> > represented by MY 1st person interpretation of it,
> so
> > while "there is" a 3rd person "truth" it emerges
> in us
> > as our 1st person understanding.
> No problem with that. We can start from the first
> person as well. In 
> some of its presentation Plotinus follows that path.
> Technically it is 
> less simple. Albert Visser got the logic of
> intutionistic provability, 
> and its corresponding version of the Loeb truth.
> But you know I am a Platonist , and then classical
> logic is more easy 
> to handle. Anyway, we get all  "hypostases".
> Incompleteness leads 
> naturally to many different points of view, even
> with "Truth" limited 
> to the truth of proposition about numbers.

Bruno, I don't believe you are a Platonist. You may
accept some (side?)lines of Platonistic ways, but
you are ~3 millennia past Platonism, I think even
past Loebianism. You are a BrunoMarchalist.
> Bruno
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
John M

Reply via email to