Hi Marsha, I think I can provide some rhetoric for this. Language is a man-made creation, although the Cabalists would say it has divine properties (whatever, if man is divine, or part of the divine creation, then this can be easily argued). Logic is also a man-made creation, and a paradox implies a flaw in logic, often coming through in common sense. As such, words are based on teleology. That is, a word is defined by other words, which are then defined by the original word, round and round. Many would call this a house of cards, I call it a wonderful creative structure, like the Grand Canyon. Logic is no different, and paradoxes simply point to an unfinished construction (always unfinished). Logic is improved (through science or whatever) and we continue constructing in a creative way.
We see the same thing in math. For example if we add the (imaginary number) square root of negative two to itself, a negative a square root of negative two number of times (also known as multiplication of the square root of negative two times itself) we end up with a real number. So the sum of imaginary numbers becomes a real number, how is this possible? The answer is, that such numbers, like words, are abstract concepts. That is, we create them and the logic supporting them. If we create a house it is real, there is no difference. Now, I suppose that we could say that what we create is not true. But what is it then, false? I don't think so, it is all part of truth if we want to create such a concept. So, I find it difficult to imagine that there is something more which remains hidden, such as absolute truth. Truth is our concept, that is about as true as it can get. If we look outside of that, truth does not exist, it can't because we create it. I hope this is not too obscure or poorly written. Cheers, Mark On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 9:15 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Arlo, > > > I was more interested in the paradoxes presented by language. > > For me there are two types of truth: a conventional truth and a Dynamic > ultimate truth. Of course, I act in the world in the conventional manner > and need not worry that a motorcycle left in the parking lot will not > become noticeably different during the absence of a few beers. Yet > metaphysically, I understand static patterns of value to be overlapping, > interconnected, ever-changing process, which tend to persist and > change in a stable, predictable pattern. > > > Marsha > > > > > On Mar 21, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Arlo Bensinger wrote: > >> [Marsha] >> I hope Arlo does not mind me reposting it; I only save posts I think are the >> most brilliant. >> >> [Arlo] >> Arlo doesn't mind, although since I was not a part of your disagreement with >> DMB, I am not sure what kind of "HA!" John thinks this conveys, but oh well. >> Nor am I sure your point? >> >> But since this seems to imply your asking me my thoughts, and to clarify, >> I'll chime in. >> >> First, I agree with Dave in that presenting only two options (ever-changing >> and never-changing) is wrong. I also agree that Dynamic Quality is best >> understood as "ever-changing", so using that term to describe static quality >> unnecessarily conflates and confuses the two. >> >> Yes, when viewed from an "eternal perspective", all static patterns change >> over time. None are "eternally permanent" and un-changing. But, for me, the >> distinction is that it is pragmatically useful for us to act in the world by >> seeing static patterns as unchanging enough to be, for all intents and >> purposes, "unchanging" and "discrete". >> >> For example, I know that when I go into a pub and park my Harley outside, >> when I come out in a few hours (barring theft) my motorcycle will be as I >> left it, and I know I will be able to discern my motorcycle from a cloud, >> the dirt and even the motorcycle next to it. Sure, if you ask me I will >> acknowledge that in thousands of years the metal and fiberglass and rubber >> and whatnot that compromise my Harley will have likely "changed" through >> disintergration or some other transformative process. >> >> But pragmatically, it is of more value to me to act as if the bike is >> unchanging and discrete. Yes, I know this is ultimately an illusion. Yes, I >> know the motorcycle is not eternally unchanging in the cosmos. But acting >> like the bike is "ever changing" and "indiscrete" from other static patterns >> would leave me very hindered at acting in the real world. >> >> So saying the bike is "ever-changing" and "indiscrete from other patterns" >> has no real practical value. So I don't act with pragmatic consideration at >> the knowledge that in 100,000 years the iron will be disintegrated. I don't >> act with pragmatic consideration that its patterns are part of the clouds >> above and dirt below and other machines next to it. >> >> I can hear the mechanics chiming in that one HAS to pragmatically recognize >> the changes going on within the motorcycle to keep it running, and I am not >> saying these can be pragmatically ignored. I am talking about the >> "staticness" that keeps the motorcycle from disappearing as a "motorcycle", >> and for me that is rooted in the pragmatic value that acting as if the >> machine is stable over time and discernable from the birds flying overhead >> brings. >> >> I know in billions and billions of years the earth will no longer exist, the >> sun will be dead, maybe our entire galaxy may be collapsed into a black >> hole, but its more useful to me to act regarding my motorcycle still being >> in the parking garage when I go back for it, and that I will be able to >> discern my motorcycle from the cars, the stones, the people, the fence, the >> bushes, etc. >> >> > > > > > > ___ > > > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
