Hey, Joe --
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!
I view the MoQ as neither physics nor metaphysics but as a euphemistic
paradigm of differentiated existence.
To say that it is more logical to label what you can't explain "indefinable"
and "redefine" the rest does not quality as metaphysics. The natural
sciences have defined the universe in empirical terms which is how it is
experienced. It doesn't need to be made into a metaphysics, but it must be
encompassed within any metaphysical ontology.
What is "the logical basis for reality" that MoQ seeks to replace? And does
the author presume to know that "all of reality" is "levels in existence?
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.
Joe, you can't define the unknown, which is why Pirsig refused to define his
Quality. And you can't make what you don't know logical. What makes you so
sure that intellectual logic is the 'end-all' of understanding? Was the
universe created so that it would be intellectualized as "logical"?
Evolution may be a relatively new concept in the history of mankind, but
even simple animals know that things appear, change, and disappear, which is
the sequential process of nature as experienced. Incidentally, I don't
posit reality as sentience/objectivity.
That's the mode of reality we call existence.
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.
Indefinable emotions are the least logical phenomena I can think of.
Moreover, what is the pressing need to "define" subject-object existence?
It's the empirical reality that has been fully investigated and defined by
Science. An exception is the conscious self, but this is rejected by the
MoQ. So what do we gain by putting reality on an evolutionary time line and
calling the concept "an emotional indefinable logic"?
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.
Insight is an emotional tool? I view it as the capacity to abstract
logically from experience. I also view evolution as phases, periods, or
epochs in the process of nature, rather than "levels".
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.
Thoughts, feelings, and concepts do not occupy space. But what we know
comes from the experience of things and events that do. For me,
"intentional existence" is the actualization of being from value
sensibility. Which means that material existence represents the value and
meaning that we give it.
The bridge is emotions. If it doesn't exist it isn't real. I can sense
it
unless I am deceived. Proof!
Again, your rhetoric eludes me. What, exactly, does your "emotional bridge"
prove?
Your ideas are interesting, Joe, but we're far from from being on the same
page.
Have a pleasant Labor Day weekend,
Ham
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
