At 04:32 PM 6/18/2007, you wrote: > [SA previously] > > > And this is why literalism is a barrier to > > >understanding a reality that includes that which is >ineffable. > > [Marsha] > > Would you say that ambiguousness is an advantage to >understanding > a reality that includes that which is >ineffable? > > > Ambiguous doesn't understand anything, thus, >static quality. Static quality is stable enough to >get an understanding across, with the levels and such, >but these levels are not totally distinct due to there >growth, non-deadness, and therefore openness to dq. >Therefore when you say, "Exactly!" but then say your >only kidding about literalism being a barrier it >doesn't make sense. My previous quote above is >plain-spoken. Literalism in SOM is too rigid and >distinct. It is too black and white. To be literal >in SOM is different than being literal in MOQ. >Literal in MoQ is plain-spoken using static patterns >of value, but it is understood that the big picture >includes dynamic quality. > >This is how I see this. > >thunderstorm!!!!!!! yeah! >
Strange, SA. I thought your 'later in the evening now' was chocked full of meaning, an ambiguous-type of meaningful. Marsha 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/
