[MD] cloud of probability

[MarshaV]

Dmb.

Whether you understand my post or don't means nothing to me.  Whether you agree with me or not means nothing to me.  I gave it my best shot.   Criticize me to your heart's content, I don't much care.   


Marsha








On Jun 10, 2011, at 1:02 PM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> Marsha said:
> The advantage I find in considering pattern-x in the form all-that-is-opposite-from-non(pattern-x) is to prevent my mind from falling into the trap of thinking some superficial, reified definition (thoughts, concepts, words or equations) is the full pattern.   While definitions are important, to think a pattern is limited to any particular definition is foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> Oh, I see. You're even more confused than I thought. 
> 
> So you think concepts and definitions are something other than static patterns of intellectual quality? Is that what you're saying? If that's the case, then what the heck are you talking about? If concepts and definitions are not intellectual static patterns, then what are they? Where are they? 
> 
> These are rhetorical questions, of course. There is no intelligible answer because words and concepts are static patterns. In fact, the phrase "static pattern" is itself a concept within a larger coherent system of concepts. Like the man says, and like every reasonable person knows, metaphysics must be definable, divisible and knowable or there isn't any metaphysics.
> 
> It does not take a rocket scientist to grasp this point. The proper use of words and concepts is not optional. To misuse them is to destroy any possibility of fruitful communication or clarity of thought. For such an incompetent abuser of the english language, excellence in thought and speech isn't even a remote possibility. 
> 
> 


 
___