[MD] cloud of probability

[MarshaV]

Hi Dan,

On Jun 10, 2011, at 11:46 PM, Dan Glover wrote:

> Hello everyone
> 
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:35 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> On Jun 8, 2011, at 11:55 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello everyone
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:07 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha said:
>>>> ...at the moment, I think the best answer would be: all-that-is-opposite-from-non-gravitation, and I sometimes visualize the pattern as a cloud of probability.
>>>> 
>>>> dmb:
>>>> 
>>>> "Definitions are the FOUNDATION of reason. You can't reason without them." (Emphasis is Pirsig's. ZAMM, page 214.)
>>>> 
>>>> "A metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any metaphysics." (Pirsig in Lila, page 64.)
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> 
>>> Exactly. Come on, Marsha and Mark. If you want to know what
>>> gravitation is, look it up. Or even better, try reading ZMM... or
>>> re-reading it, or whatever it takes to get the ideas contained there
>>> to sink in.
>>> 
>>> Good God almighty...
>>> 
>>> Dan
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Dan,
>> 
>> There are times when RMP uses words and concepts that go beyond the dictionary definition,
>> and dictionaries differ.  for instance there are words in German that do not have an equivalent
>> in English.
> 
> Dan:
> 
> Yes, but those German words have to be defined in some fashion,
> otherwise they're just gibberish. There may not be an equivalent
> English word, but there are definitions none the less.


Marsha:
About the words that RMP uses uniquely for his own purposes 
in explaining the MoQ?  For instance, the word 'quality' has no 
division, in the dictionary, defined as dynamic or static.  Look it 
up.  And I did post "I use a dictionary all the time.  I agree that 
you cannot reason without definitions."  My point was that 
patterns are more than definitions.  


>> 
>> Good Goddess almighty...
> 
> Yes, I like her too!

Good to hear it!



> 
> Dan

Marsha 

___