[MD] Contradiction and incoherence.

[118]

Hi John,
I like the way you put it below.  Concepts are indeed a double edged
sword, and the trick is using those edges in a way which brings about
most meaning.  We have the wonderful flow of water which could be said
to embody the open ended presence of Quality.  Then we have that
specific flow of water that is coming from a crack in the water
heater.  Yes, they are both a flow of water, but viewing it in one way
is more useful than another.  On the other hand, if we then try to
extrapolate a leak in the water heater to the flow of Quality as
coming from some singular crack in the universe, this focus of
conceptualization is more useless than not (although that can be
debated).

Because of our "leaky" way of looking at things, we conceive of a "big
bang" that started from a very tiny place and then gushed forth
creating all that is.  However, this singular manner of seeing the
universe, really gives us no meaning whatsoever. For what are we going
to do with this understanding throughout our day?

The same can be said for Quality.  Sure we can break it down into
components and deliver adjectives for description, and say that parts
are indefinable.  If one likes to live in the indefinable, this is
good.  If one loves deconstructionism this can also be good.  But what
we do with the pieces of DQ and sq so as to put them back together in
a useful way is what matters.  We create an artificial divide between
DQ and sq, and then put them back together in the unity of Quality.
This may seem like a meaningless exercise, but the meaning comes while
doing this.  We deconstruct human anatomy so as to be able to cure
diseases.  We deconstruct Quality so as to cure diseases.  However, in
the end we are not left with a body in pieces.

For some it is meaningful to view language as a manipulation of
symbols.  The symbology therein can provide meaning just like a
picture of a hamburger can make one hungry.  However, we do not then
eat the picture but go to the source to satisfy hunger.  If we end up
with words being the sum total of what is described, we will die of
spiritual starvation.  Many are already there, and are wondering what
is missing.

Glad to have you back, John.

Mark

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 12:51 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark and Marsha,
>
> Let me start fresh and describe what I'm thinking, as clearly as I can.
>
> There is relative truth in the statement, "the tendency over time for
> conceptualization to  become less useful" is true, IF we add in a missing
> assumption or corellary or phrase "qua conceptualization".
>
> That is, as a narrowing focus or defining label or "pinning down" of
> reality - a conceptualization of reality, it becomes less "pinnable" the
> more you examine it.  Like a hypothesis of any part of reality, the more
> you think about it, the bigger it gets.
>
> I think the problem for me, is that with enlightenment on the subject,
> comes the realization that this is a good thing, and not a "less useful"
> one.  In the end, it is the infinite regress of knowledge from inquiry that
> places us squarely in an open-ended and infinite cosmos.  A Quality
> cosmos.  Whereas if things were really reducible to machine-perfect
> precision? We'd be living in a machine, part of the machinery.
>
> Some of us as viruses,
>
> J
> 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