Hi Matt, My concern is the distinction between awareness in Physics, and awareness in Metaphysics. Defined/Undefined. The theory of how we know things will determine my response SOM. I accept that I know the indefinable directly without glasses MOQ.
What quality (adjective) of DQ makes it indefinable? SOM. DQ Quality (noun) is indefinable by definition. MOQ. Imho The theory of knowledge by abstraction SOM is bogus. Emotion is a Direct perception of DQ quality! I know the undefined. I experience levels in existence, evolution! Inorganic, Organic1 (cell reproduces by division), Organic2 (egg/sperm reproduction), Emotion DQ only, Intellectual DQ/SQ. Heroes (Pirsig) evolve to higher emotional and higher intellectual levels (esoteria). Joe On 9/29/11 5:21 PM, "Matt Kundert" <[email protected]> wrote: <snip> > I'm not going to suggest that there are not shortcomings to the > glasses analogy as I've outlined it. However, if we do not deny the > suggestion that we can take the glasses off, then I think we have > bigger, more SOM-like problems to deal with. And if we do deny > that we can take off the glasses (i.e., _all_ static patterns), then this > is at least one beginning attempt to try elaborate what that means. 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
