dmb said:
..."Gravity" is a physical concept, a word with specific meanings. It is NOT
an ineffable mystical reality.
John wonders what a physical concept looks like:
Is it a concept composed of physical attributes? I thought it was just an
idea - something in a mind. How can a concept be physical?
dmb:
Think about the fact that Newton and Einstein were mentioned in the context of
saying "gravity" is a physical concept.
It is dawning on you yet? Newton and Einstein are famous for being ________?
No? Still don't have it? Okay, instead of fill-in-the-blank, how about multiple
choice?
Newton and Einstein are famous for
A) messy hair
B) bad manners
C) Physics
No? You still don't see what a "physical" concept is?
Okay, I'll just tell you. A physical concept is an idea from Physics or an idea
used by physicists.
John said:
It's a ghost, dave. It's only in your head. That doesn't mean it's not real,
after all, everything is only in your head and everything is the only reality
you'll ever know, so I don't see what the big deal is, anyway. Except you sure
got some hang-up with reality, man. You insist that your reality is the only
possible one, while we all know that the universe is pluralistic. ... And do we
all have to conform to your definitions? Even when they're wrong?
dmb says:
Seems like you and Marsha keep making this same mistake over and over. See, I'm
talking about concepts and definitions, not reality. If I say that Marsha is
misusing terms and quote Pirsig saying that definitions are the foundation of
reason, I do NOT mean to say that proper definitions are reality. If I say
"gravity" has a proper definition, I do NOT mean to say that the law of gravity
is anything more than a concept. I'm simply saying that Marsha will never be
able to communicate effectively without using concepts and definitions
properly. And neither can anyone else. This is not a claim about ultimate
realties. It's about the english language and the nature of reasonable
philosophical discussions. Who thinks the riddle of the universe can be found
in a dictionary? Nobody, that's who. But you know what CAN be found in the
dictionaries? Definitions. Words. Lots and lots of words. Lots and lots of
concepts. And they all relate to each other, mean what they mean in relation to
each other.
But there must always be a discrepancy between concepts reality because the
former are static and the latter is dynamic. The latter is undifferentiated and
the former is all chopped up into bits. Those static bits ARE words and
concepts. To counter the demand for proper use of terms with quotes about
undefined Dynamic Quality is to change the subject from dictionaries to the
mystic reality, from reason to mysticism. To confuse these two things is to
misunderstand the distinction between DQ and static quality.
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
