[MD] cloud of probability

[MarshaV]

Hi Dan,  

On Jun 11, 2011, at 2:12 AM, Dan Glover wrote:

> Hello everyone
> 
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:59 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> Dan:
> 
> Patterns are definitions though.

Marsha:
Yes, I agree that most patterns contain definitions, maybe many 
different definitions: common man's, technician's, and  scholar's 
definition.  There may even be different definitions from scholars 
with opposing positions.  But my point again, was that I do not see 
patterns limited to words on paper, word on screen, or words in 
an internal dialogue.  


>>>> Good Goddess almighty...
>>> 
>>> Yes, I like her too!
>> 
>> Good to hear it!
> 
> You know it!

Marsha:
I am quite certain, but cannot hear it enough.  


> Dan


Marsha 
 
___