Hi Ham,

Right back-at-you! Thanks!  If you view the MOQ as physics that is a
misinterpretation.  If you view the MOQ as nonsense we can discuss it by
exposing the validity for the reality hidden to the mathematical logic of
physics, metaphysics.

DQ/SQ as a metaphysical statement of defined/undefined reality is more
logical and encompassing than SOM Subject/object reality.  The base in the
theory of knowledge, abstraction, in SOM, has no logical capacity for a
multi level principle in reality like evolution.  In SOM evolution is
irrational.  Change the metaphysics!

Pirsig's insight, resulting in the DQ/SQ Metaphysics, exposed a logic for
DQ/SQ where DQ is indefinable not irrational.

MOQ, used a realization of levels in existence beyond the scope of S/O, to
explain  multi levels in reality. MOQ replaces the logical base for reality
in an S/O division in intellect only, to embrace all of reality in levels in
existence.  If you are going to do metaphysics, do metaphysics!

A planet does not exist as a rose exists! The planet has more possibilities,
like supporting a rosebush. Definition, beyond opinion, is needed for
intelligibility.  Faith is usually described as what is beyond intellectual
logic, not what is non-existent.  Evolution is a new concept.  The theory of
knowledge in MOQ, repairs a fault line in SOM by proposing evolution, not
just sentience/objectivity as reality.

In SOM, evolution had no foundation in metaphysics before Pirsig described
the wider, more embracing logic in MOQ.

IMHO DQ/SQ, proposed reality in an emotional indefinable logic, evolution,
followed by an intellectual definable logic S/O.  This validated the
knowledge of an evolutionary world much broader than the S/O world alone.

Evolution is described more clearly as levels in existence, rather than only
as S/O reality.  Who cares?

Metaphysics is not faith-based yet probes more deeply into the knowable than
the mathematical logic of Physics.  In DQ/SQ logic, insight is an emotional
tool that explains what is indefinable not what is irrational.

IMHO A Faith-based system Essence, accepts the order S/O, identifying the
existence of knowing with the existence of being, instead of accepting as
Aquinas did that intentional and real existence do not take up the same
space. My brain is not even as big as the moon, and that's not even throwing
the universe in for good measure.   It proposes that the intentional
existence of knowledge mirrors real existence.

The bridge is emotions.  If it doesn't exist it isn't real.  I can sense it
unless I am deceived.  Proof!

Joe

On 9/1/11 9:42 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thanks for your thoughts, Joe.  I don't mean to be dismissive of your
> analysis; it's just that you are intractably tied to an evolutionary thesis
> that is incompatible with my philosophy of Essence.


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

Reply via email to