Hi Ron, With that loose dynamic conception of "definition" I would and could not disagree with you - I fear Platt sees "definition" more like the things he finds in dictionaries.
It's that kind where I declare "definition is death". Ian On 4/30/07, Ron Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Platt said > > > ... but without [definition] > > we couldn't understand one another at all. > > That is patently untrue. We value and understand many things by shared > aesthetic experience. Definition is something done with hindsight - for > good pragmatic simplification reasons, in context etc ... but it is not > at all "necessary" for understanding. > > It is "always" a compromise, a dumbing down, a devaluing, and is far > from necessary. > > > [Ron] > Ian, I beg to differ on this simply because all experience could be > viewed as a definition > of some sort. The only way we communicate is from a shared perception of > experience on some > Level or another which is defined by our senses "shared aestetic > experience" is a relative > context for the base of a shared Understanding. In the valley of the > blind, the one eyed are king > 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/ > 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/
