Hi Dan, On Jun 11, 2011, at 2:12 AM, Dan Glover wrote:
> Hello everyone > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:59 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Dan, >> >> On Jun 10, 2011, at 11:46 PM, Dan Glover wrote: >> >>> Hello everyone >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:35 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Jun 8, 2011, at 11:55 PM, Dan Glover wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello everyone >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:07 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Marsha said: >>>>>> ...at the moment, I think the best answer would be: >>>>>> all-that-is-opposite-from-non-gravitation, and I sometimes visualize the >>>>>> pattern as a cloud of probability. >>>>>> >>>>>> dmb: >>>>>> >>>>>> "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: >>>>> >>>>> 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... >>>>> >>>>> Dan >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Dan, >>>> >>>> There are times when RMP uses words and concepts that go beyond the >>>> dictionary definition, >>>> and dictionaries differ. for instance there are words in German that do >>>> not have an equivalent >>>> in English. >>> >>> Dan: >>> >>> Yes, but those German words have to be defined in some fashion, >>> otherwise they're just gibberish. There may not be an equivalent >>> English word, but there are definitions none the less. >> >> >> Marsha: >> About the words that RMP uses uniquely for his own purposes >> in explaining the MoQ? For instance, the word 'quality' has no >> division, in the dictionary, defined as dynamic or static. Look it >> up. And I did post "I use a dictionary all the time. I agree that >> you cannot reason without definitions." My point was that >> patterns are more than definitions. > > Dan: > > Patterns are definitions though. Marsha: Yes, I agree that most patterns contain definitions, maybe many different definitions: common man's, technician's, and scholar's definition. There may even be different definitions from scholars with opposing positions. But my point again, was that I do not see patterns limited to words on paper, word on screen, or words in an internal dialogue. >>>> Good Goddess almighty... >>> >>> Yes, I like her too! >> >> Good to hear it! > > You know it! Marsha: I am quite certain, but cannot hear it enough. > Dan 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
