Quoting Ron Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Dan:
> In my opinion LILA was written in an effort to provide a reference. The
> MOQ provides terms with which we may form agreements. When others go off
> on their own tangents (like Bo's SOL) then confusion results. I took the
> time to answer your post as it seems I am partially responsible for
> promulgating it.
>
> [Ron]
> Thank you for fielding these questions, I never quite got what Bo was on
> about before, now I think
> I understand, and it's very interesting, SOL follows similar thoughts
> I've had myself. I was wondering
> where others stood. Hows the shop treating you?
Since you asked, here's where a stand -- squarely in strange loop where one
can place himself into infinite regress without even taking a deep breath. What
Bo
and others attempt to do is think about SOM thinking with higher thinking based
on an MOQ stance. Obviously, to think about Bo's MOQ stance requires climbing to
an even higher level to view it, and from there climbing higher to view the view
that views the MOQ stance, ad infinitum. It's the same problem science runs into
when it relies on empirical observation, raising the question of observing the
observer, then observing the observer observing the observer observing the data,
ad infinitum. Or, like the question put to theologians, "Who created God?, then,
"Who created the who who created God," etc., etc.
I think the technical term for this loopy conundrum is Godel's Theorem but I
could be wrong. In any case, logical thinking in the end is a dead end. Like
science's theory that truth must rely on empirical observation cannot itself be
empirically verified.
Regards,
Platt
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
