Hi Ron, You are correct in that I do not understand much of your post. This is my fault. If you could direct me to some articles which present the history of the arguments you refer to, I would be most grateful.
I agree with your presentation of meaning as a foundation for logic. I have said as much. As such, it goes deeper than words. This would agree with Ham's Sensibiliy. A sonnet provides meaning through this area, that is, that it "feels" right. There does not need to be rhetorical logic in a sonnet. That was all that I was implying. Mark On Jun 5, 2011, at 7:07 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > [Mark] > Nothingness is that which divides. Where is that which divides good > and evil? Can you point to it? Does it exist? This is where Ron has > difficulty. He is trying to create a dualist world with divisions. > However, he cannot himself point to that which divides. If the > divider does not exist, we are left with a monist world, not matter > how many opposites we can imagine. > > Ron: > Mark, there is so much confusion about what I'm talking about that I'm not > sure if I can untangle it and communicate my meaning accurately > to you. So all apologies if I do not pursue the dialog, you said some > interesting things regarding limit and number however. > You would understand the difficulties if you took the time to > understand the history of the philosphical problems being > discussed. > >> > > > [Mark] > Any logic is " word trickery", and Ron should know this. The sophists > based their expression on word trickery. Lawyers sound awfully > logical unless you are on the other side, then one must beware of > trickery. If Ron can explain in terms of a logical premise, such > explanation is immediately suspect since it relies on assuming a > starting assumption to be Truth. What is it that makes such an > assumption the true Ground to build on? Everything built from it > stands as if on quicksand. > > Ron: > First of all logic is predicated on experience more importantly an > agreement of experience and what we are properly speaking > about is not logic or truth but meaning. The best explanations > are those that prove themselves good by way of experience. > They provide the greatest meaning. > Hams explanation is unclear and discontinouse not to mention > posessing a crucial contradiction of terms that has huge consequences > in his theory. > This makes it difficult for him in his rhetorical arguements.Talk about > theories > being built on quicksand! > Logic is based on meaning not truth so what I condemn Ham for is not that his > theory is true or not but that it has little meaning. > >> >> Ron: >>> >>> That absolute source being "the good "as primary reality, whatever exists >>> indeed is a reduction, perceptually, of "the good". Perception is the >>> limit >>> and to limit is to carve meaning from experience. To make that which is >>> unintelligible, intelligible is clearly the greatest good. It accounts >>> for beauty >>> in experience and why it is better to be wise than not. > > [Mark] > To "make intelligible" is not necessarily good. It can also be used > for coercion and extreme evil. There are many ways to create the > intelligible. The stars in the heavens can be made into > constellations, which can be considered intelligible, but they detract > from the beauty of the sky by omitting most of it. Once we claim to > be working to make good, we are to be feared. Most beauty is not made > intelligible. A sonnet is made up mostly of unintelligible beauty. >> > Ron: > What makes the sonnet good Mark. What makes it beautiful? > the relation to experience , obviously the sonnet was successful > in making the experience intelligible. Or else it would not be understood > as beautiful. It would not have any meaning. > > > ............................ > 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/md/archives.html 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/md/archives.html
