[MD] Imaginings

[craigerb at comcast.net]

[John to Mark]
> However, the Allah that can be named is not the real Allah, so 
> worship always evolves into idolatry.

[Arlo]
> Just jumping in with agreement, John, and I think this is, in fact, a 
> very important statement. Indeed, "the Allah that can be named is 
> not the real Allah" is the same thing as what I said earlier, 
> "the moment you speak you create incompleteness". 

. [Craig, previously] 
> I can't see you're in agreement since John is talking about what's 
> REAL & Arlo is talking about what is COMPLETE, which is not the 
> same thing. 
> Let's change the example from Allah, since no one knows 
> if he is real or a fictional character from the Koran. 
> Consider the tree outside my window:  when I look, I see the real 
> tree but not the complete tree (e.g., I don't see the other side 
> of the tree or the inside of the tree.)  Similarly, when I talk 
> about the tree, I'm talking about the real tree, even if I don't 
> completely know everything about the tree. 




[Arlo]
> Well, I'd say that [not] "real" in John's example refers to 
> incompleteless.  Its not like the "thing named" is something 
> else entirely, just something "less than" the "unnamed". 
Nope, "in/completeness" doesn't work either.  When I named my cat 
"Schatze", I named the real complete cat that, not some part of her. 
I could have named some part of her Schatze, but then I would have 
had to come up with another name for the complete cat.  No one 
ever does this.  (It's bad enough she thinks her name means "food".) 
[Pirsig] 
"Since the One is the source of all things and includes 

all things in it, it cannot be defined in terms of those 
things, since no matter what thing you use to define it, 
the thing will always describe something less than the One itself." 

. 
This quote is irrelevant, since it deals with DEFINING not NAMING. 

Craig