Hi Ron and All, I was shocked the other day to realize that I didn't know what I was writing. My logic was totally words, without intellectual participation!
When I examined this further I realized that I was upset, I was not calm. Logic stresses me in a discussion of the evolution of levels in reality beyond the boundaries of experience. The individual does not experience all evolutionary levels in the same way. I was looking to metaphysics for verification without the necessary deliniation in experience for logic in my brain. This empowered further upset. "I am not alone", intervenes in my use for logic. I do not always experience what another person is writing. I have different experiences. Words define these different experiences, but definition adds more agitation in the acceptance of metaphysical experience. I have not realized evolution to all the levels proposed in this metaphysical discussion. My logic is flawed, leaving the foundation for meaning hanging on to whispers so to speak. I do not trust myself to format logic for insanity rather than metaphysics. Joe On 7/28/13 8:26 AM, "X Acto" <[email protected]> wrote: > [Ron adds] Right, the syllogism is used for wringing the most meaning about > what we can say about experience while the tetralemma is useful for pointing > to that which can not be said about experience. This however is not a > justification for the MoQ to be illogical or justification to what is said > about MoQ to be illogical in a philosophy forum. 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
