Hi Ham, Hopefully we are at the crux of our disagreement. Physics, metaphysics follow differing logical rules. The logic for physics (mathematics) is incapable of describing evolution (levels in existence), metaphysics.
Pirsig suggests that the template of metaphysics is DQ/SQ. This ennables a place in logic for indefinable reality as exemplified by evolution, levels in existence. Metaphysically existing levels enable a concept for differing individualities. Morality has a logic of differentiation in metaphysics as well as a Faith-based differentiation! MOQ, proposes an indefinable, evolving reality. This surpasses the possibilities in mathematical logic of physics by acknowledging evolution. The error message for the 1/0 (a necessary concept of evolution), removes SOM intentional/real existence as a possible metaphysical construct for evolution. Imho evolution is not face-based. A perception of metaphysics as the MOQ that Pirsig realized describes reality. MOQ is more reasonable than SOM in identifying individuality as evolutionary existence rather than the intentional existence of SOM. DQ/SQ is separate from a logical definition of SOM demanding participation by a Faith-based Creator. There is no reasonable explanation. Logical Metaphysics rules. MOQ explains evolution as hierarchical levels in existence. The Intentional/Real division of existence in SOM demands a preexisting belief in an uncaused/cause prior to existence. Can only a negation of a perception describe a new conception? How? The logical thought, mathematics, is the definition for physics. The belief in a supernatural being is Faith, SOM. The acceptance of a determined metaphysical logic for reality, indefinable, not non-existent evolution as levels in existence, DQ/SQ is reasonable. On 9/12/11 5:06 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Joe -- > > >> Hi Ham and all, >> >> Evolution! Neither the definition for evolution or the reality >> of evolution is determined by an actor's value system, or >> the mores of his/her society. DQ/SQ metaphysics supports >> indefinable/definable reality in evolution! > > If DQ/SQ applies only to evolution it is not a "metaphysics" of Reality > (defined or undefined) but a euphemistic paradigm for space/time existence. > There is no logical or philosophical justification for assuming temporal > process as a condition of ultimate (uncreated) Reality. > > Essentially speaking, > Ham > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > > On 9/12/11 1:04 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We all have the freedom to act (or not act) within the limitations of our >> physical being. Volitional acts are motivated by one's sense of value. >> Whether a particular action is moral or not is determined by both the >> actor's value system and the mores of his/her society. > > 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 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
