Hi Ham and All, In S/O metaphysics existence is divided into REAL EXISTENCE and INTENTIONAL EXISTENCE. Such a division depends upon the intervention of a CREATOR of infinite capabilities, in order to verify the infinite and finite existence of the logic of religion. DQ/SQ is a more logical division of existence paving the way for evolution as the arbiter for different perceptions of reality in existence.
Debate about belief systems cannot be verified in experimental logic. There is no way for a finite being to experience infinite existence. There can be no metaphysics for S/O Existence, but only an unverifiable belief system. Pirsig wanted to overcome this bone of contention and embraced the metaphysics in which the first split is between Dynamic (undefined) and Static (defined) reality in existence. Existence is existence. Pirsig envisioned a single definition for existence, and embraced evolution as the explanation of reality by the perception of different levels in existence. DQ is indefinable yet perceptual reality, SQ is definable conceptual reality. This mirrors experience and ends the debate about natural, supernatural realities. DQ is indefinable not supernatural, and the religious wars in history are shown to follow the meanderings of the irrational metaphysics of S/O. Joe On 7/30/11 10:08 AM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, I suppose evolution can be described as a series of levels. But WHY? > This is like the poet's numerical analysis of his love for a lady: "Let me > count the ways". Does parsing Love numerically make a romantic attraction > more insightful or comprehensible? > >> Accepting a "duality in existence" is either fish or fowl and you >> don't gain much clarity in only an acceptance of "yes" and "no". >> "Oh My Stars!" is so much more real! >> >> A sensible awareness of the primacy of existence aids in the >> evaluation of a description of evolution. > > Joe, existence is a differentiated system -- that is, a plurality of related > things and events. Inasmuch as "two" is the beginning of numeration, I > submit that establishing a duality (i.e., the Self/Other dichotomy) as the > primary difference, and working from there is far more useful "an > evaluation > of evolution" than arbitrarily numbered levels, static patterns, > conventions, > causes and effects. This not only avoids having to explain complex and > largely unknown relationships between phenomena, it affords a > conceptual foundation for a metaphysical ontology. 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
