Replying to LO25291 --
[Host's Note: I think this exchange is getting too esoteric for the
learning-org distribution. ..Rick]
Dear Winfried
Winfried Dressler wrote:
> you are really struggling hard to get my soul ;-).
For what purpose would I want your soul whatever that is, I am afraid you have
tottaly lost me on this.
> >> When I read statements like this I am compelled to answer them:
> >
> >To be compelled is to be driven (so what is it specifically that compels you?)
>
> Well, in fact this first sentence is not true,
I am not so sure what you mean by not true. (for you, me, as a general model)
> I have just cited you.
Yes, okay but I was talking about motives and values and needs.
> But
> because I indeed DID write, I thought this little cheating keeps unnoticed
> and privately I enjoyed this littlebit of recursiveness. It was also meant
> to indicate my awareness and suspension of the law of the excluded middle
> as well as the law of non-contradiction on the level of the continous
> field.
Okay, but both those laws cannot be on the level of the continuos field
only on the Discriminant object. We then use our just noticeable
differences (JND) and logic like and/and and or/or.
> But I also choosed to identify what I have cited from you as a statement.
> And as such I have treated it playfully. Your explanations show me that
> you did not realize this playing but that you assume my attachement to
> logic.
Winfried I actually do not understand what you are saying some times and I
put that down to you not having English as a first language. I also did
not assume your attachments to logic, attachments, I meant, were to our
values not to logic. Logic is our mental mechanism of using our capacities
to understand complexity. Is that what you mean it to be?
> But I hoped I made my willfull choosing clear by referring to me as
> a democrat (didn't this word surprise you?).
No I was not surprised but had no idea of what you were saying or what it
meant. Maybe you should elaborate.
> This includes the hint that
> in democracy logic IS applied on at least written language, on
> 'discriminated objects' generally I think.
> And I wished I would be better
> in Logik .
Winfried using the word wish can mean that you would like it to be so but
it can never really be so. Is this understanding of mine correct? or does
it mean something else?
I am not too sure what your statement means here either.
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.