### Post by Tamrin on Mar 13, 2007 20:33:43 GMT

I see ... sort of. Let me see if I can untangle what you have said:

Or, in light of your views on the ineligibility of women to be Freemasons, are you intentionally NOT including the former among the Brethren? I presume your usage goes beyond semantics as, like

Agreed, but we have already established that one cannot

That may be a common perception. An individual may, however, have good reason to demur—50 million Frenchmen CAN be wrong.

Agreed, but your ''Ah-Ha!' moment may not be mine. The trouble with mathematical 'proofs' is, as

***

> Greetings Sisters and Brethren,= Greetings Sisters and Brothers,

Or, in light of your views on the ineligibility of women to be Freemasons, are you intentionally NOT including the former among the Brethren? I presume your usage goes beyond semantics as, like

**Wittgenstein**, you appear to acknowledge the limitations of language.***

> In view of the ex-istences of an indefinitude of universes, each with an indefinitude of prototypes of beings and an indefinitude of their modes, the premises of questions of possible communications amongst them seem to yours truly too restricted to our familiarity with parts of only one such universe and thus of limited applicability to the question of what constitutes proof.= There are too many variables to exclude the possibility of alien contact.

Agreed, but we have already established that one cannot

**prove a negative**in such cases. To return to the question—We need to go to specifics—What, for instance, would you accept as proof in any one or more of the reported sightings which are widely discussed among UFO enthusiasts.***

> If intellectual intuition were limited to one individual mind-body conceiving itself as separate from the rest of manifestation, it would have not even generality, let alone universality. The typical case of proof of consensus amongst a number of mind-bodies leads to limited common recognition but not to universality. Usually, navigation of a vessel is based on experience of proofs based on consensus.= 'Proof' is commonly thought to be a matter of consensus.

That may be a common perception. An individual may, however, have good reason to demur—50 million Frenchmen CAN be wrong.

***

> Intellectual intuition is not what is sometimes called "gut feeling". An example of intellectual intuition familiar to some is the passage to the limit in integral and differential calculus. For an ample explanation of this and some other relevant items of mathematical symbolism, read Bro. René Guénon's work The Metaphysical Principles of the Infinitesimal Calculus, translated into English. Yours truly has read only the French original and thus cannot vouchsafe the translation.= The experience of an 'intellectual intuition,' is akin to what some call an 'Ah-Ha!' moment.

Agreed, but your ''Ah-Ha!' moment may not be mine. The trouble with mathematical 'proofs' is, as

**Imre Lakatos**observed, they are essentially tautological—even in the cases of the delightful**Vedic mathematics**, (upon which I presume Guénon drew), which deal with fractions of the whole rather than multiple, distinct units.