On 15 Feb 2002, at 15:16, Angus Guschwan wrote:
> Bo,
> I've clued in to our form of disagreement. You use
> logic to solve the problem we agree on whereas I use
> paraconsistent logic.
Good to see a new angle to the q-intellectual level/Quality/DQ-SQ
conundrums, but if I will I get my logic shifted over to your
paraconsistent one is a big question mark.
> The problem is "isn't it an
> error to put MOQ in Q-intellect?". I agree.
OK, that much we agree on.
> The Bo
> solution is to add a "growing notion" of a new level.
> I think it's an error because it is logical. Why not a
> 10th level and skip 5,6,7,8,9? Well it's a next level
> because it's logical. So your form for solving the MOQ
> in Q intellect is to use "logic." My solution is to
> apply paraconsistent logic.
Will skipping of numbers help, whatever follows 4 will be 5 - no?
And ...."an error because it is logical? Well, I have obviously not
got the paralogic yet, and while waiting for the light-bulb above my
head ..... let me chat on.
> Allow 2 realms of parallel
> thinking where each exposes the other truth.
Exposes the truth? As false, is that the meaning?
> If we
> think of DQ and sq paraconsistently, the problem of
> MOQ in Q-intellect goes away. The problem is I can't
> explain it to you logically because then I wouldn't be
> paraconsistent. I think this is why you have such a
> hard time with being understood. You are trying to
> express a concept that language can not accomadate. So
> my problem has been to find a new language, I suppose
> the "art code" that you talk about is it.
The paraconsistencylogicism isn't in my grasp yet. Remember
your own "show" vs "book" method? Now, to take the Quality/DQ-
SQ first, this is "exposed" as a language construct if one visualize
an ocean as dynamic and static (the static being permanent
features: waves, currents, ice or whatever. One sees that it is the
same water wherever the (analytic) cut is made.
Does this apply to the "MoQ out of intellect" question? I believe
so. Intellect is a layer (say of ice to keep within my region) on top
of three previous layers and aught to display the same consistency
within itself as the other levels, but - according to the general
opinion - a glaring inconsistency suddenly enters. Q-intellect turns
into some foggy realm that reminds me of good old MIND. For
some participant it "contains all the other levels" which proves
more than anything that it is SOM's
consciousness/mind/awareness .....
To repeat: All levels are consistent - the highest pattern in tune
with the lowest, but when it comes to Intellect it turns absurd.
SOM is supposed to be one pattern and the MoQ another which is
fire and water blending. No, both logic and paralogic tells me that
the only solution is to regard SOM=Q-Intellect and the MoQ an
intellectual pattern that has started on a purpose of its own. I am
not the least heretic in this, but will address THAT in a message for
DMB and Squonk.
> So I wonder
> if my expression here is accurate of your specific
> opinions about this narrow question? It seems you can
> help me in this fight to find a solution of some sort.
Same to you ....about helping to find a solution of some sort. A bit
tongue-in-cheekish, we may be into the same sort of struggle as
the early followers of Jesus. It's about the very soul of a new age.
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:51 BST