On 12/10/09 11:31 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip> Ham Joe, maybe it's the late hour, but I have no idea what triggered all this cynicism, even if it's directed at me. I can accept criticism, but can't respond intelligently to this collage of unclarified assertions. Perhaps you should take a refresher to relieve your frustration, and come back when you can state your point more clearly. Hi Ham and all, I was trying to clear my thoughts. DQ/SQ undefined/defined is not cynicism. So, of course the unqualified assertion between us is DQ/SQ, the metaphysics of undefined-defined. My perceptions are undefined in that they are my perceptions. Then, when I wish to communicate with another I have to use defined concepts. Pirsig rightly saw that the whole truth is not expressed in defined concepts. Some real things are indefinable and known through analogy and metaphor like evolution. I do not have to define existence because it is defined by experience. Since nothing comes from nothingness, anything that exists must have a source to create it. My definition for the primary source is non-descriptive because I have no direct knowledge of it. Yes, Absolute Essence is the ultimate reality I believe in. But it isn't simply "a mettar of faith." I can logically postulate that what transcends existence is not subject to the conditions of finitude (e.g., time, space, change, and differentiation). How can an experience define existence when Absolute Essence is the ultimate reality that you believe in? Your belief in the ultimate reality determines your definitions. Does Absolute Essence, the ultimate reality, exist or is it beyond existence and only imaginary? You are in a logical trap, Ham, when you deny existence to an Absolute Essence, which is prior to existence. Existence is the absolute reality and a definition of what exists is subject to an order in existence and a belief in Absolute Essence is beyond logic since it doesn¹t exist and is a matter of Faith.. You either accept existence or you don¹t. That is claiming a lot of power for words. Only in an acceptance of the undefined is such a statement possible, and its an acceptance of an evolution in consciousness only to higher emotional or higher intellectual levels in consciousness only which is available to all but not necessary or preordained. Pirsig saw clearly the undefined. Imho Existence is the ultimate reality which manifests as Essence in a logical universe. In that way Calcium in the tooth of a sentient being exists differently from the Calcium in a calcium mine. Evolution is rightly an order in existence. But, then He says, She says! Mathematics is quite logical and it requires the existence of 1. Joe > I do not have to define existence because it is defined by experience. > Since nothing comes from nothingness, anything that exists must have a > source to create it. My definition for the primary source is > non-descriptive because I have no direct knowledge of it. Yes, Absolute > Essence is the ultimate reality I believe in. But it isn't simply "a mettar > of faith." I can logically postulate that what transcends existence is not > subject to the conditions of finitude (e.g., time, space, change, and > differentiation). 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
