Dmb, If only I could explain in a coherent (Hi Squonk!) manner. It has something to do with non-affirming negatives, but I don't have it clearly. Maybe Ron can explain. If he does, I'd like to know why he so rejected by question about opposite-from-non-beer. All of a sudden he's a tetralemma whiz-kid. That's okay. I'll take help from whoever can offer it. I am so beyond my knowledge base it's frightening. Movement, even at a snail's pace, is okay with me.
Marsha Marsha, I am changing and evolving too, I have learned a great deal since the " non-beer" argument. But, if I remember correctly you were caught up in a dualistic dilemma at the time. I said that things are relational and are defined just as much by what it is not as by the definition of what it is. I abandoned it because my explanation was going into infinite reduction by explanation. I was never going to explain it on the course we were taking in a manner in which you would understand given where your head was at the time. How the heck do you explain this stuff without a relational understanding to refer to ? My abilities were less able than they are now, and even THAT is relational conditional and dependant. So what the heck do I know? I can only increase my relationships and develop my understanding through them. All I can say accurately is that this is what the tetralemma means to me via the logical relationships of understanding I have developed thus far. -Ron 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/ 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/
