[MD] Paradox

[MarshaV]

Hi Mark,

I prefer the abstract term 'ultimate' to 'absolute'.  I can best describe 
'ultimate truth' like a conventional truth that shrinks, shrinks, shrinks, 
until it becomes a mere dot, then goes 'Pop!', and disappears.  

;-)

Marsha




On Mar 22, 2011, at 1:21 AM, 118 wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> I think I can provide some rhetoric for this.  Language is a man-made
> creation, although the Cabalists would say it has divine properties
> (whatever, if man is divine, or part of the divine creation, then this
> can be easily argued).  Logic is also a man-made creation, and a
> paradox implies a flaw in logic, often coming through in common sense.
> As such, words are based on teleology.  That is, a word is defined by
> other words, which are then defined by the original word, round and
> round.  Many would call this a house of cards, I call it a wonderful
> creative structure, like the Grand Canyon.  Logic is no different, and
> paradoxes simply point to an unfinished construction (always
> unfinished).  Logic is improved (through science or whatever) and we
> continue constructing in a creative way.
> 
> We see the same thing in math.  For example if we add the (imaginary
> number) square root of negative two to itself, a negative a square
> root of negative two number of times (also known as multiplication of
> the square root of negative two times itself) we end up with a real
> number.  So the sum of imaginary numbers becomes a real number, how is
> this possible?  The answer is, that such numbers, like words, are
> abstract concepts.  That is, we create them and the logic supporting
> them.  If we create a house it is real, there is no difference.
> 
> Now, I suppose that we could say that what we create is not true.  But
> what is it then, false?  I don't think so, it is all part of truth if
> we want to create such a concept.  So, I find it difficult to imagine
> that there is something more which remains hidden, such as absolute
> truth.  Truth is our concept, that is about as true as it can get.  If
> we look outside of that, truth does not exist, it can't because we
> create it.
> 
> I hope this is not too obscure or poorly written.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark
> 
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 9:15 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Arlo,
>> 
>> 
>> I was more interested in the paradoxes presented by language.
>> 
>> For me there are two types of truth: a conventional truth and a Dynamic
>> ultimate truth.  Of course, I act in the world in the conventional manner
>> and need not worry that a motorcycle left in the parking lot will not
>> become noticeably different during the absence of a few beers.  Yet
>> metaphysically, I understand static patterns of value to be overlapping,
>> interconnected, ever-changing process, which tend to persist and
>> change in a stable, predictable pattern.
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> 


 
___