[MD] Reductionism

[Joseph Maurer]

On 7/2/09 2:06 AM, "skutvik at online.no" <skutvik at online.no> wrote:

Hi Bo and all,

<snip>
Anyway THE issue is that whatever we want to express - even that of
something not expressible in words - must be expressed by words. All
efforts to avoid language is futile .... SEEN FROM INTELLECT - and
is why I'm so aghast at Pirsig's applying intellect's criteria to the MOQ
(it being just concepts [i.e. subjective] in contrast to Quality which is
outside of language [i.e. objective])
 
Bodvar
 
Hi Bo and all,

I hope your exhibition went well, or if not completed that you are having
fun. Defined/undefined, concept/percept have an exact relationship for 0 in
terms of + or ­ built into a brain. imho.  A conception is defined and put
into a word.  A perception, DQ, precedes the conception, is undefined,
knowable, and emphatic enough unless the brain is disturbed to know whether
or not it is + or ­.  Yes the brain can be disturbed enough to err,
insanity.  The brain computer does not get hung dividing by 0 because it
knows, though in an undefined way, +0, -0.  Truth is no problem unless
disease, lying, or ignorance are present.  imho

Joe

> Anyway THE issue is that whatever we want to express - even that of
> something not expressible in words - must be expressed by words. All
> efforts to avoid language is futile .... SEEN FROM INTELLECT - and
> is why I'm so aghast at Pirsig's applying intellect's criteria to the MOQ
> (it being just concepts [i.e. subjective] in contrast to Quality which is
> outside of language [i.e. objective])
> 
> Bodvar