[MD] reifying carrots

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi Ron,

Ha, yes - an important, fundamentally meaningful "NOT" omitted.
(But it didn't actually change your understanding of my meaning -
think about it.)

You concluded :
"In conclusion the arguement is NOT about a quibble over two competing
equal definitions, It's about which one has greater meaning."

I'm not quibbling - all definitions are unequal. Having pinned down
one definition to your satisfaction, there is still the meaning of the
other one, and so it goes on ... there are not enough well defined
words to cover all the possibe meanings (precisely). The ones whose
meanings are best defined are not necessarily those whose meaning has
the greatest value - is my point.

Ian

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 1:38 AM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Ian:
> No Ron, the absurdity is "precisely".
>
> Ron:
> Then "clarity" is as equal, absurd.
>
> Ian:
> Meaning (as value) is what its all about.
> We agree already.
>
> So back to your other response ...
> Definitions (many possible) are part of meaning, but usage is a bigger
> part, and direct experience of value bigger still. Meaning does start
> and end with "a precise definition".
>
> Ron:
> Well if "Meaning does start and end with "a precise definition", then why are you insisting
> that it's absurd?
>
> I think you probably "meant" to say more "precisely" is that meaning does NOT start and
> end with "a precise meaning".
>
> clarity and precision are better and hold greater meaning than looking at any and all
> definitions, however imprecise as equal in meaning. direct experience is what makes
> some definitions more clear and precise than others therefore, clarity and precision
> is always measured by direct experience.
>
> I think, you are so eager to jump to the assumption that I'm calling for rigid static definitions
> that you are unable to see that what I'm really calling for is precision and clarity in meaning
> which has little to do with rigid static definition. To be precise in our explanations, and thus
> our definitions is to render our values more intelligible.
>
> If that is absurd Ian, then the expansion of reason is absurd.
>
> In conclusion the arguement is NOT about a quibble over two competing equal definitions,
> It's about which one has greater meaning.
>
>
>
> ..
> 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