Hi Khoo 9 Jan. you wrote to me:
> Its not that your topic is odd or even novel. Its your circularity > that has us going on round in dead ends. My "circularity" may be my constant returning to the MOQ and the novel perspective it affords, but I see no circular logic in my reasoning. > I am sure that you know you can take logic only as far the premises > you base your argumentation on will take you. You may draw your > conclusions, but we question your premises and all premises all the > way to the original premise. Logic only works for a certain set of > conditions and if you chose not to venture beyond these conditions, > you would not open yourself to the possibilities that may offer > themselves. About conclusions from premises, and questioning premises I agree, but (your) logic only working for(?) a certain set of conditions I don't understand. Logic demand explanation (of observations) from given premises. The classical example is the ancient cosmology that had the earth as universe's center. This forced logic to create crystal spheres and ditto rings within rings to make observation fit the "map". The Subject/Object premises has forced logic to create no less number of "crystal spheres". These the MOQ's Dynamic/Static premises dissolves and made a much easier job for logic. Or perhaps INTELLIGENCE?? > For my part I like to draw insight from non-logic and non-sense. This sounds "good" but is impossible. > You should try it some day. Must be something like the Fakir's rope trick. If you teach me I'll try. Bo PS. Just a question. Are you Burmese ...or? 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/
