Excellent Arlo, Thanks for the persistence, I think we've got somewhere.
Let's work bottom-up.
Yes, I understood why you introduced coherence, hence saw it as
worthwhile to maybe switch to that for a while. Notwithstanding the
definition of coherence itself, it did also throw up this question
(implication) that coherence of an argument or expression requires
that the objects and relations involved also have "good" definitions
(or not). As you say, worth keeping in mind, since we are likely to
bump up against this question further.
Including "well-defined" in that suggested statement? Yes, I did in
fact add it for emphasis, and in a strict sense, yes it is probably
redundant to the intended logic. OK.
Now, I'm not deliberately "equating" SOMism with objective
definitions, but even in your re-statement includes ".... objective,
scientistic, definitional logic .... is a feature of SOMist
intellectual expression" - so clearly there is a strong relation /
dependency between subjects / objects / relations having logically
workable definitions, and SOMism.
I just add back as a question the final clause that you snipped out
following that:
"Pragmatically, MoQish argumentation also uses these, but it is MORE
THAN these?"
With the same MORE THAN emphasised. Rather than working the definition
of SOMism to death, I'm asking what does MoQish expression and
argument have, that distinguishes it from SOMist expression and
argument.
Ian
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 4:59 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <ajb...@psu.edu> wrote:
> [Ian]
> What I do say (using the words you suggest, from your reading of mine)is that
> objective, scientistic, definitional logic does necessarily privilege
> well-defined subjects and objects and well defined relations between these
> and is a feature of SOMist intellectual expression and argument.
> Pragmatically, MoQish argumentation also uses these, but it is MORE THAN
> these.
>
> [Arlo]
> What value does inserting "well defined" into this statement serve? If I
> restate it without, it appears to make more sense.
>
> {Arlo restates]
> What I do say (using the words you suggest, from your reading of mine)is that
> objective, scientistic, definitional logic does necessarily privilege
> subjects and objects and relations between these and is a feature of SOMist
> intellectual expression and argument.
>
> [Arlo continues]
> I'll ask, since you find my 'accusations' unfair, is your inclusion of 'well
> defined' meant to imply/suggest that 'well defined' equates with "SOM"? If
> not, why add it? Can there be "well defined" non-SOMist/MOQish intellectual
> patterns? (I suppose I should make a comment that do we need to differentiate
> "poorly defined" (which is what I'd argue violates coherence) from
> "undefined" (which, as I mentioned, does not suggest incoherence), but maybe
> that can be kept in mind.)
>
>
> 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
