Right. So we disagree in 3 points: convergence, need for a referent, and foundations. And I answered your sibling question a long time ago. But the answer is irrelevant. So I choose not to answer it again. >8^D
The 3 points of disagreement: 1) Ignore convergence. 2) need for a referent: · You say logical argument depends on what's being talked about. · I say logical argument depends only on the logic used. 3) foundations: · You: the faith in logical unification/foundation is essential inquiry. · Me: logics are gaming structures to be assumed and abandoned at will. Re (2), I am NOT saying logics are "relative as applied". Logics are independent of their application. *Reason* (or whatever other word you choose for standard thinking and navigating the world) includes the application of logic, the assignment of meaning to various logical symbols. On 12/1/20 11:33 AM, [email protected] wrote: > So, except with respect to my longing for convergence, we agree. See larding > below : > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? > Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 1:21 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world > > But you said "we may hope to discover and agree upon fundamental principles > underlying all logics". I was simply checking that and saying I neither hope > for that, nor believe it possible.[NST===>I both hope for it and believe it > is ultimately possible. Most of all, I believe that that faith is essential > inquiry. This is here e disagree? <===nst] > > And the important part of what I expressed was that logic does NOT depend on > what we're talking about. It is referent-independent. No semiotic object is > necessary. Only the sign and the interpretant are necessary. The object ... > the "checkin with the world" is necessary for reason, but not logic. And > reason relies on logic, but is not limited to it. > [NST===>Oh, gosh, I guess we do disagree here, too. But I think you disagree > with yourself. If all logics are relative as applied, what could they > possibly be relative TO other than content?? <===nst] > > And a third point is that it is NOT subject to any kind of in the long run > convergence. Logics are games. They are set up and played and none of them > will ever go away. You or I may get bored of one or the other. But they'll > all still have their place. > [NST===>And what exactly is their place?<===nst] > > Did you answer my question about birth order? I am preparing an ad hominem > argument I and I need some data. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
