[MD] cloud of probability

[MarshaV]

Ron,

Thanks for trying to help.  I have never stated that definitions were 
meaningless, quite the contrary.  


Marsha 








On Jun 12, 2011, at 9:10 AM, X Acto wrote:

> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> --------
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html


 
___