Hey Angus
ERIN:For some reason it seems like it would have to be done in
> baby steps with each level
> growing in size and complexity.
ANGUS: This statement betrays your "structuralism." Being
"logocentric" we love growth, a center out of which
something progresses. But instead of going from 4 to
5, it could go to -1. Why not? I'm not against going
to 5, I'm just asking "are we going to 5 for our love
of serial progression? (is that your "reason")" I
think so BECAUSE a better solution is to think
paraconsistently.
ERIN: Okay I worded that badly. What I wanted to express was I thought maybe
there could be a larger grasp of paraconsistent logic. Although I wasn't
thinking of it as "progressing" or "entropy" more of paraconsistent growth
with larger grasp of chaos/order.
I liked the idea of larger grasps of Quality but you are right about asking
why a 5th level. What has lately been bothering me about a 5th level is that
MOQ seems to lose its symmetry. Which leads to my next question paraconsistent
logic seems to have symmetry so is this still betraying my structuralism?
ERIN: When you were talking about postmodernism you mentioned this
"[dq]depth[/dq]". I am not sure how to read this. It does remind me of a work
by a postmodernist whose work I did like though "Deep Surfaces: Mass Culture
and History in Postmodern American Fiction."
Actually it with this person who I felt first gave me a taste of
paraconsistent logic but it was when he would talk about poetry. Do you think
poetry is a good label?
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 - 16:01:52 BST