Hi Mark, I prefer the abstract term 'ultimate' to 'absolute'. I can best describe 'ultimate truth' like a conventional truth that shrinks, shrinks, shrinks, until it becomes a mere dot, then goes 'Pop!', and disappears.
;-) Marsha On Mar 22, 2011, at 1:21 AM, 118 wrote: > 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 >> >> >> ___ 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
