Hi joe, Doesn't sound like a logic problem to me, sounds like trying to describe the ineffable. My interpretation of your Essence, which I believe you may use the term "emotion" for sometime is that which results in the Intellect. It cannot be defined ultimately (agreed upon in the social level) since it is the foundation for the intellect and arises. Score that final flurry. A book cannot describe the authors millions of thought everyday that he then summarizes on paper. However, to be able to point to such Essence through analogy does give others a "sense" of what you intuit. Some create music or poetry for the same reason. Metaphysics is a simplified description of something much more vast. The trick, I think, is choosing the best way to express it. If we were to accept "Lila" literally, we would miss most of what Pirsig is trying to convey. Thus the purpose of this forum. The essence of a taste is indescribable, yet we try to share it.
In my opinion of course, Mark On Oct 14, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mark and all, > > The word I am trying to get into the cross hairs on my metaphysics scope is > "Essence". In an evolutionary environment "Essence" of SOM is indefinable > as plurality in a different way from DQ/SQ in MOQ. > > Essence is indescribable as a noun and indefinable as a level in existence > in reality. If I try to conceptualize Essence in levels in evolution, it > does not produce the same emotion for reality as conceptualizing Existence > in levels in evolution. Essence does not admit to change when what evolves > remains Essence. I feel there are no markers for levels in Essence, > evolution. Yet I have no problem conceptualizing levels in existence for > evolution. Where's the beef? I have a logic problem! > > Joe > > > On 10/13/11 7:25 AM, "118" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Joe, >> I am not sure if redefined is the right term. I would use extrapolated. The >> adjective quality becomes a noun in the attempt to formulate an underlying >> concept which produces quality. The general meaning has not changed, for >> what >> is quality (as expounded initially in ZMM)? If we use the Hindu concept of >> "the world of appearances" then quality is the way things appear. We then >> consider a concept which gives birth to qualities. For rhetorical purposes >> we >> call that Quality. Once established, Quality can then be directly expounded >> on. This is one of the methods of metaphysics, which is no different from >> Science. Once a theory is given a name, it assumes a conceptual life of it's >> own, and becomes an abstract proper noun. The utility of such defined >> abstraction is shown by the march of applied science. It is hoped that the >> same comes from MoQ. The march of science appears disorganized when working >> in the middle, the same is true for metaphysics. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Mark >> >> On Oct 7, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Matt and All, >>> >>> Imho Part of the problem in communicating ideas is that words are being >>> redefined. Quality moves from an adjective to a noun. Good also is >>> conceptualized in both categories. To aid communication, a vocabulary has >>> to be established of SOM and MOQ. Is the definition or description for >>> "evolution" to be or not to be? >>> >>> The biggest stumbling block to that vocabulary is evolution! "Indeterminacy >>> of DQ/degeneracy" undercuts "just knowing it." >>> >>> For myself "evolutionary markers", "definitions" are all in the unknown, >>> discussed bin. I suggest that "evolutionary markers" follow a pattern like >>> the musical octave of 7 steps of varying levels as a template. At least >>> sound and color define some definitive repeating differences. >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> >>> On 10/6/11 11:45 AM, "Matt Kundert" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Matt: >>>> But are we not sometimes wrong about what we feel is going on in >>>> our experience? Your answer is, roughly, that we "just know" when >>>> we are following DQ. But the reason I've been bringing the thesis >>>> I've dubbed the "indeterminacy of DQ/degeneracy" to bear on this >>>> issue is because it seems to me that that idea in Pirsig undercuts >>>> the certainty otherwise endowed to "just knowing it." >>> >>> >>> 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 > > > 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
