[dmb] This notion seems to be some kind of theological hangover from the days when people believed the word was divine and images were evil. But I've never met anybody who thinks that words have a single, exclusive meaning and so it stikes me as an assertion so weak that its not even worthy of rejection.
[Ron] But think of the symbolism of your comment, "images are evil" and "I've never met anybody who thinks that words have a single, exclusive meaning" but, we do tend to do that with formed pre-conception. An image is a kind of definition which influences the percieved value and people do assume a single exact meaning as a matter of course in casual conversation. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Kulp Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:28 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] Heads or tails? This sort of reaction always baffles me. Am I wrong to believe that everyone knows that most words have more than one definition? I mean, since the word "exact" is used here as part of multiple definitions it would not make sense to take it to mean "exclusive" or "unique". The word simply refers to a certain degree of precision. As you say, definition sets limits. It draws a line, which is what we need to distinquish the figure from the ground. [Ron] Just stressing a point, what defines the degree of precision? The more you define something the more vauge the meaning becomes.I would not say you were wrong to assume everyone knows that words Have multiple meanings but some believe an absolute definition can be derived and misinterpretation Overcome. I contend that way leads to more confusion and less accuracy. A line may be drawn to Distinguish figure from ground but conceptually they only have meaning in relation to one another. [dmb] I'm guessing Ian's attack on the dictionary is a misplaced attempt at anti-essentialism. He's not really against the structure of language so much as "essential" meanings, whatever that is. This notion seems to be some kind of theological hangover from the days when people believed the word was divine and images were evil. But I've never met anybody who thinks that words have a single, exclusive meaning and so it stikes me as an assertion so weak that its not even worthy of rejection. [Ron] I'm not focusing on Ians comment so much as I'm using it as a platform to explain Topos theory And its relation to the MOQ. Much discussion has been made in the past regarding why Pirsig did not define the levels more absolutly.I contend that he could not and still maintain the context Of the MOQ. As for essentialism,I feel it's major flaw is the esoteric terminology it uses to describe itself. [dmb] You know, if "X" can't be distinguished from anything else "X" has no value and does not exist. [Ron] Consider if "x" can not be distinguished from anything else,"x" has no value but perhaps it does exist It is just outside our ability to distinguish it. This whole definition thing touches on the fundemental concepts of MOQ and is symptomatic of the SOM perception. _________________________________________________________________ Mortgage rates near historic lows. Refinance $200,000 loan for as low as $771/month* https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&se arch=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f8&disc=y&vers=689&s=4056&p=5117 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/ 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/
