Hi Marsha, I like that concept, it opposes the concept that we have to be "finding" (creating) more and more until we "discover" (create) the Truth.
Thanks for that, Mark On Monday, March 21, 2011, MarshaV <[email protected]> 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
