Bo, Changing the subject doesn't get you off the hook so again:
Please state which of my statements you are calling "Marshas woolly nonsense." At lease give me an opportunity to defend my position. Marsha On Jan 2, 2010, at 9:20 AM, [email protected] wrote: > All > > 2 Jan.: > > I received this from Andre > : >> Quality subordinate to 1+1=2? Where do you get that from Bodvar? >> Quality is not subordinate to anything. Rather Quality has 1+1=2. >> Quality is direct experience, the non-intellectual cutting edge. Please >> do not reduce Quality to some logical sequence of events. > > Please give me hell on this point, I'm happy to be corrected. Will > have to think some more on this issue. > > Marsha wrote the same day: > >> I have been haunted by something I read a while ago: All knowledge is >> to some degree false because it is to some degree incomplete. >> Wouldn't this make knowledge both true and false? > > Knowledge in intellect-as-SOM's ultimate "true,objective" sense is not > tenable, but we must not throw the baby out with the water, i.e. > declare intellect-as-a-Q-level's immense S/O value to be worthless. > This is the effect I fear from the "MOQ-an-intellectual-pattern" faction, > namely that the MOQ is a "better intellectual idea" which is it isn't, it's > no intellectual pattern but something that has departed from intellect- > as.SOM and transformed into its own 4th static level I hope you still > subscribe to the SOL. > >> And this morning I read that Feyerbend called the laws of formal logic >> naive. Margolis says much about adding Indeterminate to the bipolar >> truth-values: True or False, but I'm finding his book very difficult >> because he mentions dozens of philosophers (briefly stating their >> argument) I have never heard of, and who seem to have some professional >> stake in this game. But I wonder that DQ is present in every event and >> it is indeterminate. Hmmm. > > But this is something else. Logic through which "gates" experience > must pass to be perceived (the simplest of which is 1+1=2) cannot be > violated or declared "naive". Understand? Intellect's science may > make a lot of "findings" that later shows to be wrong, but 1+1=2 will > never be found wrong This is what has begun to worry me of late. > Where does logic itself belong in the MOQ? > > Happy to hear your (all) opinion. > > Bodvar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/ _______________________________________________________________________ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 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/
