"One geometry cannot be more true than another; it can only be more convenient.
Geometry is not true, it is advantageous."
(RMP)
On Jun 9, 2011, at 11:18 AM, david buchanan wrote:
>
> dmb quoted both of Pirsig's books:
>
> "Definitions are the FOUNDATION of reason. You can't reason without them."
> (Emphasis is Pirsig's. ZAMM, page 214.)
>
> "A metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any
> metaphysics." (Pirsig in Lila, page 64.)
>
>
>
>
> Dan replied:
> Exactly. Come on, Marsha and Mark. If you want to know what gravitation is,
> look it up. Or even better, try reading ZMM... or re-reading it, or whatever
> it takes to get the ideas contained there to sink in. Good God almighty...
>
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> I sincerely wonder if Marsha and Mark are capable understanding this point.
> "Gravity" is a physical concept, a word with specific meanings. It is NOT an
> ineffable mystical reality. It's a scientific term that refers to a
> predictable, quantifiable, repeatable action. On earth, I believe the formula
> is 32 feet per second, per second. In Newtonian physics it is a concept that
> gives precise meaning to the fact that unsupported things fall to the ground
> and planets remain in orbit. Einstein's physics uses this concept in a less
> mechanical and more sophisticated way but it's still NOT mysticism. It's
> physics. Physics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't
> any physics.
>
> To define "gravity" as the opposite of all that is non-gravity, as Marsha
> did, is just convoluted nonsense. It's a pointless logic loop whereby the
> term in question is twice negated so that one simply does a full circle right
> back to the term without adding anything at all. It is literally meaningless.
>
> Definitions are the FOUNDATION of reason but Marsha "reasons" with her own
> private definitions. In her world - and what a lonely place it must be -
> static patterns are not static and they are not patterned. In open defiance
> of all the dictionaries, she imagines them as ever-changing clouds. To
> torture and abuse the english language in this way is to remove oneself from
> reason and intelligibility, to cut oneself off from communication with others
> and can only end in confusion, isolation and unhappiness.
>
> Can you imagine what would happen if someone answered questions this way in a
> court of law? At best, she would be cited for contempt or even declared
> mentally incompetent. A person exhibiting such behavior would end up in jail
> or even in a psychiatric hospital.
___
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
