[MD] Porkchops and Applesauce

[Case]

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: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ron Kulp
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 3:58 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
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: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Case
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 3:42 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
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"