Understanding Matte Blanco

DEAR SIR,

1. I have read Ross Skelton's letter (IJPA, 66: 504–5) many times and, to my surprise, I have increasingly discovered new things in it. I also have come to understand better his point of view. Why this slowness? The answer (in my case): emotion both blocked and stimulated my understanding.

I think I have reason to believe that something similar is happening to him. And I am happy about it, for, if the spatial appointment I spoke about in my previous reply has not yet taken place, we now are, in my opinion, much nearer to one another. I hope this letter will help in this sense.

I am pleased and grateful to him for his appreciation of my efforts: 'very thorough', 'I have no quarrel with this imaginative perspective …' 'M.B.'s interesting work', and other comments as well. And I am happy that he is trying to find 'a satisfactory weaker version' of the principle of symmetry in order 'to achieve consistency'.

2. Regarding this latter point, may I say that I believe that a weaker and two-valued logically consistent version of the principle of symmetry will leave the unconscious out. Personally I am exploring another alternative: is it possible to conceive a wider logic which may have symmetrical logic and two-valued logic as aspects of it?

3. I shall now concentrate on this remark of his: 'Matte Blanco seems not to have understood my single, though I believe crucial criticism of Bilogic, namely that it is inconsistent'. If we can arrive at an agreement about this question, then there would be no serious problems between our points of view. Let's try.

3.1. I do not question his assertion that even if there is only one contradiction between the principles of a given system, the system falls apart. I would like to make some additional general comments about it but I do not think it is essential here. What is pertinent is the fact that the bilogical system he is talking about is not the concept of bi-logic I have put forward. If he reads, or rereads,