On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Andre Broersen <[email protected]> wrote: > John to Steve: > The easiest way to describe my disagreement is when my reality is > conceptual - the LAW of gravity, for instance. It's a piece of > symbolic reasoning that can be completely and thoroughly encapsulated > by the human mind, transmitted cleanly and in its pattern - conceived > as a piece of reality itself - is only transmittable through language. > How can you then say that language can't get us any closer to the > reality of the law of gravity? > > Andre: > Hi John (again). I think that the MoQ would consider the Law of > Gravity a high quality intellectual PoV as a description of (a part > of) reality. However, this description is not reality itself.
Steve: I'd say so too, Andre. John, I don't mean that words aren't real. Of course they are. I'm critiquing the idea that there is a real Reality that stands behind a veil of appearances, and that we are either hopelessly out of touch with this real Reality or we can hope to someday discover the correct words that get us in touch with the way things really are. Bo seems to think that the MOQ is that set of correct words. Best, Steve Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
