On 12-25-97 David Martorana wrote to John Boone... 
 
        Hello David and thanks for writing, 
  
        [snip] 
  
 DM>  JB> Perhaps, however, I am unconvinced, the substance 
 DM>  JB> holds without form, what you call logic grammar. 
 DM>  JB> While substance is important without form it is 
 DM>  JB> nothing. So why study, form, form allows one to 
 DM>  JB> arrange the substance such that the conclusions 
 DM>  JB> follow. 
    
 DM>    NOT RIGHTY RIGHT: Substance can and often does function 
 DM>    some distance from form and even when it follows close 
 
  I agree, I see it happen all the time, however, the fact 
it, substance functions some distance from form, happens doesn't 
it make it right or desirable.  Much like, I could say, murder 
can and often does happen some distance from the law..... 
  
 DM>    it is often automatic (a given without words). When the 
 DM>    form is over *advertised*, it diminishes the substance 
 DM>    to a grammar lesson. Language should rise above the 
 DM>    language teacher. 
    
   However, langauge without grammer is not understandable. 
Try understanding the following words: 
 
         Time new bust thing it no lamp nevo concept bad 
         was not item.... 
 
  There is "substance" in that sentence. I am sure 
you can find it since grammar is not important, right?  
I hope I proved my point, grammar is very important. 
   
 DM>   JB> Ah, but I don't agree with Charles.  Charles and I 
 DM>   JB> disagree. 
   
 DM>   You do agree in the arena you both favor, of presenting the 
 DM>   cleanliness of logic as superior to substance, ...substance 
 
  I disagree. I think we both think logical form is important 
but that is different than saying it is superior to substance. 
For example, I can make the tautology, "white is white" while 
logical is not very interesting. It has no substance. 
  
 DM>   being sloppy and stained with the gray insights of experience, 
 DM>   a point Frank has been trying to hammer home without success 
 DM>   for some time. I am convinced that this "two ships passing in 
 DM>   the night" dilemma will take time to clear  
    
  Ah, I never denied experience is often trial and error 
hardly "clean." 
  
 DM>   JB> I do agree there are "traits" which do 
 DM>   JB> increase a societies numbers, but I fall short of 
 DM>   JB> saying these are objective "human values." 
   
 DM>   I'm not sure what you mean when you talk like that! 
    
  Well, ask? 
  
 DM>  DM>> might one day learn a bit. I do not have the "big time" 
 DM>  DM>> faith in symbolic logic, though I might appreciate 
 DM>  DM>> it of value in the more non humanish sciences. I had 
    
 DM>  JB> Symbolic logic has brought Calculus, physics, chemistry, 
 DM>  JB> etc.  Such should give enough "faith." 
    
 DM>   NOT when dealing with any measure of humanness. Here again 
 
   I do agree symbolic logic is not sufficient when dealing 
with humanness, if so, courses like socialogy, pyschology, 
etc should be put to pasture after all they are based in 
"science." 
  
 DM>   it seems important to separate out the hard sciences and not 
 DM>   try to correlate them with our everyday "head messin". 
    
  While it imperfect, I do believe symbolic logic can offer 
-help-. 
  
 DM>  DM>  always wondered why (whether agreeing or not) Frank's 
 DM>  DM>  postings had been clear to understand and yours ever 
 DM>  DM>  a puzzle. 
    
 DM>  JB> Perhaps, your puzzle rests in the fact you agree with him 
 DM>  JB> while you don't with me. 
    
 DM>      Might be some slim sliver of truth there but also I think 
 
  Me thinks, tis more than a slim sliver . 
  
 DM>      we will sometimes agree (more) when we get past all that 
 DM>      screechy clean "objective this" and "subjective that". 
 
 DM>      Reality has a lot of mud on its shoes..and logic often needs 
 DM>      its glasses on to see it................. 
 
  Never said, Reality didn't have mud on it shoes. 
 
Take care, 
John 
 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.54 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------