> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of PzEph
> Sent: Sunday, 3 December 2000 3:36
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD the particular, the general, EITHER/OR, BOTH/AND
>
>
> PUZZLED ELEPHANT:
>
> I'M PUZZLED about this below quoted posting. Can you explain?
>
> > From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
> > Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> > Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 01:45:47 +1100
> > To: "Moq_Discuss" <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> > Subject: MD the particular, the general, EITHER/OR, BOTH/AND
> >
> > (3) The process of generalisation forces the inclusion of
> BOTH/AND concepts
> > where within the general are both concepts of a particular as
> well as its
> > opposite and due to the 'illogic' of these appearing 'at the same time'
> > forces the general to emphasis probabilites, what COULD be
> rather than what
> > IS.
> >
I have the terms LOVE and HATE that express particular states. These terms
are present in my arsenal of words that I use to express particular
situations. These terms are opposites in expression. Situations can arise
where BOTH terms are applicable but they cannot be expressed as such, we
convert the expression into an EITHER/OR sequence of LOVEHATELOVEHATE...
this sequence can occur at any scale of analysis -- seconds or centuries --
since the METHOD of expression is the same at all scales. To think of
something, to express an idea, is an act of particularisation. To express
two opposite ideas at the same time is unacceptable, a logical
impossibility, and so we convert BOTH/AND states (a static) into oscillating
EITHER/OR states, to a DYNAMIC that helps us get an idea about what we are
dealing with.
The above reflects our behaviour in responding to 'what IS' states. To talk
about BOTH/ANDness we use the concept of the general and the concept of
'what COULD BE'; IOW probabilities etc. Thus in the first example
(EITHER/OR) the concept of A + ~A = 0 reflects the excluded middle of basic
logic, there is nothing. But when we interprete A + ~A = 0 in a BOTH/AND
sense the 0 becomes a marker of potentials, it says "there is no actual
value expressed, but all potential values still exist".
This introduces the VALUE concept in that the 0/infinity dichotomy is
another way of saying 'worthless'/'priceless' and this is a definite
DIMENSION of values all of which are POSSIBLE, IOW the BOTH/AND perspective
favours what could be and that is the realm of values in that we apply this
to the past (collecting antiques, favouring the 'old' days etc etc) as well
as the future.
This said, we also include the use of the term 'infinite' which says "all
possible values for this position are being expressed at the same time,
there is no particular, or way of expressing that particular other than the
use of the term 'infinity'"
best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:53 BST