Agreed Marsha, Yes, no and all of the above, is a good way to state it.
But that answer makes logical arguments hard to construct, the kind of clear arguments some people are looking for. As soon as you have arguments with multiple steps, each with that kindof answer, the explosion of possibilities is enornormous - the waters get muddied, which is why things look like chaotic "arising patterns" rather than simple (ie simplistic) causation. Without simple "if this, then that, therefore" linear type arguments, one thing leading to another, some people are very uncomfortable. An alternative way to look at it, is that if the answer is "yes, no, and all of the above", then the original question was not a good one, or maybe started from some bad premise, which is the way I tend to look at these problems. The SOMist premise of intellectual argument IS THE problem. Ian On 8/8/08, MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Glendinning" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:07 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] The tetra lemma > > > > DMB, > > ... great writing like ... Marsha too > > "You not recognizing it (at this point), doesn't mean that logic isn't > there." > > > > The logic you're looking for is simply not "logic as we know it". > > > > Ian > > > > > > > Affirming negatives? Non-affirming negatives? How about yes, no and all of > the above? > > > > > > > > > > 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/
