[MD] cloud of probability

[X Acto]

Dave,
I think the distinction she is trying to make, and you or her can correct me,
is that Marsha is drawing the distinction between recognition and written
language, the distinction between recognizing the visual and sensual and
the recognition of the written word "tree" but in both cases a conceptual
understanding must be held in order to recognize as what is understood
and meant as a "tree". The distinction is not a clear one and it is often
confusing when expanded apon as to lose the meaning of making that 
distinction in a system of thought like MoQ.

In this context the inteligible may stand for static quality and the 
uninteligible
dynamic, but to write uninteligibly thinking we are expressing the dynamic
in an explanation is missing the reason why dynamic explanations of the
ineffiable are so terribly esoteric in meaning. 
Because the subjectmatter is undefineable does not mean it can not be
meaningfully and acurately pointed to.
The good is definition, it is limit and all reality can be seen as an effort
at intelligibility, it is the act of morality that which is inteligible is 
better
than that which is not, so it seems immoral to conclude that ultimately
DQ is meaningless. Rather the conclusion is that all reality is nothing but
meaning, nothing but a moral order and DQ is the source of meaning not
the limit of meaning.

-Ron


--------