Mark, Oh, but I get to concentrated on concepts. I liked your rhetoric!
Marsha On Mar 22, 2011, at 2:10 AM, MarshaV wrote: > > 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 ___ 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
