[MD] Paradox

[MarshaV]

Mark,

Oh, but I get to concentrated on concepts.  I liked your rhetoric!    


Marsha 


On Mar 22, 2011, at 2:10 AM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 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


 
___