Adrie, Would that be that dmb was "correct" in stating that RMP was ONLY addressing the law of gravity? Does your pdf address that? Because as far as I am concerned there is no other legitimate issue on the table. Dmb's projections, misrepresentations, sarcasm, irony, parody and insults are not my problem.
Marsha On Apr 7, 2013, at 11:45 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.andrewmbailey.com/pvi/IndetVague.pdf > > > > for marsha ,very strong article on the semantic vagueness of indeteminancy > the author is not a bullshitter. > > If you read it correctly , Marsha,you will be able to see that Mr Buchanan > wrote a very correct article > > Adrie > > > > 2013/4/7 MarshaV <[email protected]> > >> >> Hi x-man, >> >> On Apr 7, 2013, at 10:36 AM, X Acto wrote: >> >>> Marsha: >>> How about "It's all a ghost,...". Isn't the law of non-contradiciton >> one of the laws of logic? "Ghosts and more ghosts." >>> >>> Ron: >>> What gives those ghosts meaning is their neccessity in the immediate now >> of experience. The law of non-contradiction >>> is the first rule of meaning, you re either more prone to act apon it >> or less. >>> >>> >>> If all of reality is simply a ghost of the human imagination, how does >> the explanation account for the wherefore of human >>> imagination? >>> The human imagination is the response of an organism to its environment, >> but what do we mean by "organism" and >>> "environment" or should we be looking at the word between them, >> "reponse" . >>> >>> A ghost could only be a response to dynamic quality, lets go a bit >> further and say it is a response OF dynamic quality. >>> >>> Well that renders those ghosts has having something of the nature of >> dynamic quality, and if anything should be >>> gained by the position "static quality is dynamic quality" is that those >> ghosts are about as real as the term"real" can mean, >>> no? >> >> Marsha: >> If RMP can say that it's all ghosts and human imagination and also state >> that Isaac Newton is a very good ghost, than I can say static patterns are >> all illusion and also state that they are conventionally meaningful. >> >> There are examples where the law of non-contradiction does not hold, you >> might reconsider if it should be called the first rule of meaning. I >> wouldn't consider it the first rule of meaning. And even to the saying >> that things have to agree with common sense, we can call up Einstein's >> "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." >> When David Harding asked me if the patterns of the Intellectual Level >> matter, I answered "Yes." I believe they do matter. So yes, those ghosts >> (illusions) are about as conventionally real as "real" can mean. Of course >> that's if you NEED the kind of certainty a word like "real" suggests. >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> ___ >> >> >> 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 > > > > -- > parser > 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
