Marsha said:
The advantage I find in considering pattern-x in the form
all-that-is-opposite-from-non(pattern-x) is to prevent my mind from falling
into the trap of thinking some superficial, reified definition (thoughts,
concepts, words or equations) is the full pattern. While definitions are
important, to think a pattern is limited to any particular definition is
foolish.
dmb says:
Oh, I see. You're even more confused than I thought.
So you think concepts and definitions are something other than static patterns
of intellectual quality? Is that what you're saying? If that's the case, then
what the heck are you talking about? If concepts and definitions are not
intellectual static patterns, then what are they? Where are they?
These are rhetorical questions, of course. There is no intelligible answer
because words and concepts are static patterns. In fact, the phrase "static
pattern" is itself a concept within a larger coherent system of concepts. Like
the man says, and like every reasonable person knows, metaphysics must be
definable, divisible and knowable or there isn't any metaphysics.
It does not take a rocket scientist to grasp this point. The proper use of
words and concepts is not optional. To misuse them is to destroy any
possibility of fruitful communication or clarity of thought. For such an
incompetent abuser of the english language, excellence in thought and speech
isn't even a remote possibility.
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
