[FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

Right. So we disagree in 3 points: convergence, need for a referent, and foundations. And I answered your sibling question a long time ago. But the answer is irrelevant. So I choose not to answer it again. >8^D

The 3 points of disagreement:

1) Ignore convergence.
2) need for a referent:

  · You say logical argument depends on what's being talked about.
  · I say logical argument depends only on the logic used.

3) foundations:

  · You: the faith in logical unification/foundation is essential inquiry.
  · Me: logics are gaming structures to be assumed and abandoned at will.

Re (2), I am NOT saying logics are "relative as applied". Logics are independent of their application. *Reason* (or whatever other word you choose for standard thinking and navigating the world) includes the application of logic, the assignment of meaning to various logical symbols.


On 12/1/20 11:33 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> So, except with respect to my longing for convergence, we agree.  See larding below :
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 1:21 PM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world
> 
> But you said "we may hope to discover and agree upon fundamental principles underlying all logics". I was simply checking that and saying I neither hope for that, nor believe it possible.[NST===>I both hope for it and believe it is ultimately possible.  Most of all, I believe that that faith is essential inquiry.  This is here e disagree? <===nst]   
> 
> And the important part of what I expressed was that logic does NOT depend on what we're talking about. It is referent-independent. No semiotic object is necessary. Only the sign and the interpretant are necessary. The object ... the "checkin with the world" is necessary for reason, but not logic. And reason relies on logic, but is not limited to it.
> [NST===>Oh, gosh, I guess we do disagree here, too.  But I think you disagree with yourself.  If all logics are relative as applied, what could they possibly be relative TO other than content?? <===nst]
> 
> And a third point is that it is NOT subject to any kind of in the long run convergence. Logics are games. They are set up and played and none of them will ever go away. You or I may get bored of one or the other. But they'll all still have their place.
> [NST===>And what exactly is their place?<===nst] 
> 
> Did you answer my question about birth order? I am preparing an ad hominem argument I and I need some data.  

-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ