Dmb. Whether you understand my post or don't means nothing to me. Whether you agree with me or not means nothing to me. I gave it my best shot. Criticize me to your heart's content, I don't much care.
Marsha On Jun 10, 2011, at 1:02 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > 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
