I smile at your "real reality" Steve. Will the real reality please stand up!
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Steven Peterson <[email protected]>wrote: > 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/ > 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/
