On 11 May 2002 at 10:27, Gary Jaron wrote:
> Erin Hi, all, this is Gary. I
> think all of this: the step/stages, the 'chain reaction', which come
> first and the higher level questions, etc. are all problems with the
> tools you are using.
Gary
We may not be as ignorant as you make us, I am fully aware that these
things takes place in more of a "continuum", but when describing it
there necessarily must be a de-da-dum sequence.
> Every tool has limitations and the user will
> suffer the effects of the tool. You are all using Aristotelian logic
> tools. The idea that something is a fixed sequence, the idea that
> there can be no middle ground- it is either a or b, the idea that a
> hierarchy of levels is separate and the chain of command is tops down
> only, etc, all good and useful A logic metaphors and tools. But
> reality in its actuality exhibits phenomenon beyond the confines of A
> logic. Which is the realization that Alfred Korzybski had back in
> 1933 when he wrote "Science & Sanity" A formulation of a Null-a logic
> [non-Aristotelian]. [check out the website
> http://www.general-semantics.org/] [Just as Einstein's physics is
> null-Newtonian and there is a non-euclian geometry. All of this use
> of the 'non' term means beyond or subsume the prior old systems.]
Interesting about the "nulling-out" (you forgot Quantum Mech. which is
the greatest challenge to everyday logic) but why flog this group that
tries to promote a new world view that really challenges (what we call)
SOM logic?
You may know that Relativity's relationship with Newtonian physics isn't
solved by any non-Newtonian logic, but by a set of equations called
"Lorentz Transformation". When physicists confront situations where
relativistic phenomena takes effect, they don't try to "imagine" what
takes place when time or space start to "warp", but merely use the said
procedure. The same goes even more what concerns quantum physics,
there is no non-whatever logic that makes the quantum world natural.
Try the "Schrödinger Cat" example for a test and tell me what logic
makes it "logical".
> It
> would help you all to check out my first post Gary Jaron "What's wrong
> with this picture" Sun May 05 2002 - 17:48:14 BST). In that essay I
> explain some new tools. They are: Holarchies, the fact that nothing
> is separate, multiplicity of layers and levels, the layers of activity
> of the human mind, the fact that consciousness/ awareness is fixed
> within its limitations of sequential, etc. With all of these tools
> your troubles addressed in these post would dissolve.
I am impressed by your will to explore new logics, had you just
understood how revolutionary and null-everything the MOQ is. As told
my "interaction-sensation...etc" is just my way to see things.
> Hopefully the above will make more sense after reading my essay.
What about you reading LILA for a start.
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 - 16:02:15 BST