Re: MD Secondary sq ontology

From: Scott Roberts (jse885@cox.net)
Date: Thu Sep 15 2005 - 18:03:13 BST

  • Next message: hampday@earthlink.net: "Re: MD The intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)"

    Ian,

    Ian said:
    Given (3) above I say we need yet more choice of perspective.
    We have dynamism - Dynamic / Static
    We have evolution - Inorganic / Biological / Social / Intellectual

    I think another is lingusitc. Without some alternative linguistic
    conventions, as you point out, we can only discuss "static"
    perspectives, with stable, understood shared language. Not
    surprisingly, my trying to describe anything else is proving pretty
    unintelligible. I don't need to apologise for that, and you don't need
    to agree with me, beyond agreeing that there is an issue here ?

    Scott:
    Just want to interject that the logic of contradictory identity is what I
    see as the needed "alternative linguistic convention". And, until one gets
    used to it (and I'm only barely starting to), it is pretty unintelligible.
    But it is, or so it seems to me, where any adequate talk of consciousness,
    intellect, value, and language invariably leads.

    - Scott

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 15 2005 - 20:42:11 BST