Ron, Thanks for trying to help. I have never stated that definitions were meaningless, quite the contrary.
Marsha On Jun 12, 2011, at 9:10 AM, X Acto wrote: > > > Dave, > I think the distinction she is trying to make, and you or her can correct me, > is that Marsha is drawing the distinction between recognition and written > language, the distinction between recognizing the visual and sensual and > the recognition of the written word "tree" but in both cases a conceptual > understanding must be held in order to recognize as what is understood > and meant as a "tree". The distinction is not a clear one and it is often > confusing when expanded apon as to lose the meaning of making that > distinction in a system of thought like MoQ. > > In this context the inteligible may stand for static quality and the > uninteligible > dynamic, but to write uninteligibly thinking we are expressing the dynamic > in an explanation is missing the reason why dynamic explanations of the > ineffiable are so terribly esoteric in meaning. > Because the subjectmatter is undefineable does not mean it can not be > meaningfully and acurately pointed to. > The good is definition, it is limit and all reality can be seen as an effort > at intelligibility, it is the act of morality that which is inteligible is > better > than that which is not, so it seems immoral to conclude that ultimately > DQ is meaningless. Rather the conclusion is that all reality is nothing but > meaning, nothing but a moral order and DQ is the source of meaning not > the limit of meaning. > > -Ron > > > -------- > 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
