Chris:

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but it seems you're saying 
logical analysis will always exhibit incompleteness and 
uncertainty due to the way our nervious systems work.

If so, then your analysis of analysis (a meta-analysis) would, I 
assume, be equally incomplete and uncertain. 

Result: we must possess some form of understanding other than 
rational explanation. Perhaps, as Pirsig suggests, we should treat 
truths like paintings in an art gallery--find those you value and 
ignore the rest. 

Do you lean towards the same conclusion?

Platt
  


MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

Reply via email to