Ron, Yeah as Pirsig notes the thing about math is that it is direct symbolic communication. There is no ambiguity. The reader upon reading and understanding a mathematical paper actually know with the writer knows. The truth of the proof is there and complete. I think the understanding of this was a critical factor in the development early Greek philosophy where Plato and Aristotle were working to make sense of Euclid and Archimedes. By the time of the enlightenment philosophers like Locke, Hume and Kant were basically scrambling to explain Newton. The painful fact for some is that in this dance we know who always leads.
Case -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Kulp Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 3:58 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] Porkchops and Applesauce Case, You get it. I know I'm pushing the math metaphor but it gets you closer To what is actually meant. Math is more a symbol metphor for objective Reality you can't argue what 1 means as much as you can in using The metaphor of terminology in language. Math is what scientists use To measure phenomena it is the most exact metaphor we use. I don't know a better way of legitimizing the concepts of the MOQ. You value mathmatics I figure if I perplexed you with it It has some merit. Thanks for indulging me. -ron -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Case Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 3:42 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] Porkchops and Applesauce Ron, I suspect we are pushing the math metaphor a little hard but yeah sort of. Much is made about "defining" DQ. Often we like to think we know damn well what it is not. So if you subtract what it is not from everything you get DQ left over. Or you could treat it in the same way calculus was ultimately rendered and sensible and Zeno's Paradox was solved, that is through the concept of the limit. Where DQ is never exactly specified but you know where it is going or what it is approaching. I have always thought that the reason that the Tao can not be defined is not so much that we don't know exactly what it is right now but it probably won't be "that" in a few minutes and certainly it won't be "that" by tomorrow. So by naming it all we do is create the illusion of recognition. Case Case, The rounding error is the action of dynamic quality. Dynamic quality can not be defined It is infinate possiblity. To name it is to give it an assumed absolute value. Which does not exist. To give it an assumed absolute value decreases the Accuracy but allows it to be percieved. Only when we make 1 static can 1 be useful- ie. assuming an absolute value of 1. When 1 is dynamic it can not be touched,ie. "looked for, it can not be found" 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
