LS Re: Sv: The four levels


Anders Nielsen (joshu@diku.dk)
Fri, 17 Oct 1997 03:40:33 +0100


> I stated the paradox to Pirsig a little differently:
>
> o A: Statement B is true.
> o B: Statement A is false.
>
> If you place both of these sentences in one context (which is what SOM
> does with everything) you get, guess what, paradox(es). You feel this
> kind of brain-locked looping stupor. It makes you dizzy.
>
> My point to Pirsig and to my fellow TLS mates (this paradox is not new,
> I did not originate it, countless others have used this example - except
> I have not seen anyone else solve it the way I am about to show you - if
> you know of another person who has already done this, please share) is
> that MoQ and QM and the concept of many truths eliminates the paradox.

Isn't it just a basic requirement of rational thought (and comprehensible
speech/writing) not to contradict yourself during an argument. And so if I
were to do it anyway for example in the form of a sentence "All people
named Anders lie all the time", I'd break this "law" and hence make no
sense (make a meaningless uttering). I don't think this has anything to do
with SOM?

Your multiple context idea appeals to me on a sub-conscious level (but I
can't grasp it fully), so could you show some examples where you use this
idea?

--
post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:05 CEST