Replying to LO25097 --
Hi Winfried
If you want the truth tables can give you some indication of your
cognitive capabilities it is worthwhile doing them, (just change At's
exclusive-or with if-and-only-if) but I doubt it can give you motivational
direction or movement. If you want that you will have to come to terms
with your goal directed behaviour motives and values and a good dose of
what you fear.
In terms of the word fundamental I fail to understand why that should be
arrogant. Fundamental does not mean essential (it can in some instances)
but I am talking about a foundation or more basic level of those questions
posed. Why don't you answer my questions for yourself and see if they are
more fundamental, if not discard them and use something else.
Winfried Dressler wrote:
> >My answer is a little more fundamental than those posed here.
>
> Gavin, this sentence is an interesting intervention. Of course, arrogance
> does not complement personal growth. Please allow me to ride a little bit
> on this edge that you offer.
Whatever you associate with my statement is your assocaition not mine.
> Thinking about the term "fundamental", I am wondering what is more
> fundamental to life. For example:
>
> The atomic kernals which occur in organic matter (like carbon, oxygen,
> hydrogen,,,)
>
> or (I guess the "or" comes in from the comparative "mORe")
>
> The processes by which RNA reads DNA on order to produce those enzymes,
> which catalyse the growth processes?
>
> We have had several contributions trying to effectively connect with
> Rita's questions in order to allow some new, required enzymes to emerge
> which may be beneficial in steering the next growth steps.
>
> And we have one "little more fundamental answer", listing atomic kernals
> of growth.
>
> May be many of you were like me puzzled by At de Langes contribution on
> "Systematical Patterns in Boolean Logic LO25063 [complex]". I was looking
> quite a while for fitting examples to "cut the diamond faces". I think
> this thread shows some interesting movements on this 16-positions web
> (besides various interesting viewpoints on some fascinating real life
> questions).
I am not puzzled at all, Truth tables and logic have very deep association
(see Gibson & Isaac, Truth table as a formal Device in the analysis of human
action, in Levels of Abstraction in Logic and Human Action)
> [Host's Note: See http://www.learning-org.com/00.07/0052.html ..Rick]
>
> Can you point to which one I have used, quite contrary to my usual
> habbits, in my response above? And how I move?
Why don't you do the truth tables yourself and see if you can answer them.
That might give you some idea of how your logic is structured. Your goal
directed behavior I doubt that Truth table connectives cannot tell you
anything about motives. They are cognitive not motivational.
Good luck in your search for your truth
Kindest
gavin
--Gavin Ritz <garritz@xtra.co.nz>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.