[MD] relative

[118]

Hi Tuukka,


On 1/12/12, mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> Mark, Ham, Joe,
>
>
> Tuukka:
>
> I don't know what SO is as a metaphysical paradigm. If it is just
> thinking in subjects and objects then, well, no, I don't think there
> is any realistic chance of having us discard that. But if SOM is
> refusal to think in terms of recursive systems -- refusal to construct
> a structurally context-free metaphysics -- then that can be discarded.

Tuukka, in my interpretation, a paradigm in metaphysics is a certain
way of seeing the world.  One such way is to devide everything into
objects that the subject is distinct from.  It is a method that is
full of nouns and classifications, with little attention to the
dynamic aspects of reality.  In this day and age we have become
masters of subdivision and classification, but there is little in the
way of questioning whether this is indeed appropriate.  It is possible
to get away from this.  In the past I presented some posts entitled
"posting in dynamic quality format" in which I tried to present this.
I am not sure anybody understood what I was trying to do, except for
maybe Dan, who is a gifted author.
>
>
> Tuukka:
>
> Well I don't think everything I have experienced would be definable.
> But I'd have a hard time telling you what those experiences were. I
> perceived them, yes, but I didn't understand them in the conventional
> meaning of "understanding".

The final resting place of experience is the intellect
(understanding).  However, we should not place so much importance on
that (imo) since the understanding is like making a constellation out
of the stars.  There is a sky full of stars that exist in and of
themselves.  If one tries to objectify everything it would seem that
one would live in a very narrow place (again imo since I only know
myself)
>
> I believe there is use of language that is not definable. In fact, the
> problem of induction has remained unsolved for 300 years because a
> certain concept pair, "relevance" and "original objective", cannot be
> properly defined. The MOQ actually could solve this problem, but
> that's not the point. The point is if it takes 300 years to solve that
> problem, the one who began solving it couldn't have even been able to
> thoroughly understand what the problem is.

I do not think that anything is ultimately definable since there are
not enough words.  What we have is an agreement of terms.  When I say
car, people know what I mean even if a car has an infinite number of
colors, smells, sizes, shapes, experiences, memories, etc.  If
somebody does not agree with the definition, there is no way to prove
to them that it is real.  It would be as if to say that a handshake is
actually something Fundamental (who know's maybe it is, I'll have to
think about that, the mind is working...)

I am not sure what you mean by the unsolved part.  Has a problem been
created where there was none.   What happened 300 years ago that made
the problem unsolved?  Were they asking for a proof of an agreement,
beyond such agreement?  Seriously, I am interested in the terms of
relevance and original objective.  Do you have a link?

Cheers,
Mark
>
> -Tuukka
> 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
>