"NMF" <neil.fournier at sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:CRHfb.9218$r.1420882 at news20.bellglobal.com...
| "Quiescence" can often be construed
| to represent complete inactivation or
| the totality of response.
It's a Fundamental problem in 'Language'
that all verbal symbols' connotations are
'personal', in a way that derives in experi-
Science endeavors to converge upon 'Ex-
actness' in usage - which is, itself, an instance
of groupwise-seeking of 'quiesence' [ of TD E/I-
minimization :-] with respect to all connotations
other than the one that's 'agreed'-upon.
But there's considerable [Real] 'Danger' in
such, be-cause, to the degree that 'Exact'
connotations are agreed-upon, Thought,
itself, gets 'Locked-in' - 'contrary' Thought
gets 'Locked-out'. [For instance, 'seeing'
"quanta" 'blinds' one to Seeing wave<->wave
thresholding within the energydynamics.]
I prefer to take a dirrerent approach which
entails reiterating this or that conceptualiza-
tion in as many ways as is practical, 'always',
in the end, pointing-out that the contents of
the various approaches to communication
are the "Same-Stuff".
In this way, the individual-uniqueness of
'Language', which derives in individually-
unique experience, is 'bridged' - without
the discussion being diverted into semantics,
in which particular connotations are 'coersed'
upon folks, with the 'coersion' displacing
what actually matters - the stuff being discussed
and it's cross-correlations with everything else.
This last thing also reduces directly to [and
beyond] TD E/I-minimization.
FWIW, I try to distinguish between Exact con-
notations and relative connotations by using
the 'purest' form of a verbal symbol. For instance,
if I want to connot a perfect sphere, I say, "sphere",
but, in all other instances, I say, "spherical", "spher-
oid", "spheroidal". If I really need to qualify the
relativity, I use a "quasi-" prefix. Likewise, "quiet",
and "quiescent", although "quiet", itself, is most
often a relative term, as when one is trying to work-
through Difficult stuff in a "quiet" Library that really
isn't all that "quiet", but only "quasi-quiet" or "qui-
escent" - tending toward "quiet-ness" in a relative
Science is 'Difficult' because everything within
physical reality is connected, so everything can
only be discussed with respect to everything else.
'Exactness' in 'Language' is, at best, a myth, and,
at worst, a Grave-Danger.
The best way I see through this is patient-reiteration
that works to address the cross-correlations.
There's a superficial 'Difficulty' inherent, of course,
that derives in how much of this work [how many
of the reiterations] one experiences :-]
Anyway... since you 'buzzed' me, I found it worth-
while to post this clarifying(?) discussion.