[MD] Chaos

[Heather Perella]

     [DM]
> I understand that the solution suggested by the
> philosopher of science Nick Maxwell is that we need
to understand
> what we value, what we consequently want to attain
that
> is of value, and develop theories that recognise
what we value
> and what we ends we are seeking.


     Exactly.  I like trees.  Trees are trees.  Trees
are me.  Now, this value, my end that I seek (or
settled perspective) works well for me, and the world
due to trees so numerous.  Yet, exactly what I'm
saying (the context, content, meaning, etc...) is
settling upon perspective, who's perspective though
one might ask.  Mine and anybody reading this.  What
is this perspective?  It is totally real trees, and it
is me, this real tree.  What the heck does this mean? 
Any questions like this latter one, is the whole ball
in chain in which might lead to more questions, more
clarity needed, and yet, once we take certain steps
this all might be clear, even if the clarity is to why
I'm saying stuff like this.  Then explanations might
be necessary, but we are all well aware that to get
trapped in depending upon somebody for an explanation
too much is to doubt ourselves, and here, question
mark, all over again.  Is this what anybody wants,
'question-mark-all-over-again'.

clouds out of nowhere, seemingly,
SA

P.S. excellent post DM


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com