Hi Marsha and All, "Fundamental nature" is a mouthful! Is it a definition for reality? I conceptualize "logic" as being unable to describe evolution in terms of SQ/DQ, defined/indefinable reality.
Indefinable reality is individualized DQ and can only be described in analogical terms. The acceptance of indefinable DQ reality reveals sentience DQ/SQ. In the past S/O was proposed as a logical (metaphysical) base. This placed sentience in a horrible bind to define all of reality. This made definition equal to a mathematical certainty, denying evolution. Creation was more acceptable than metaphysics. Metaphysics is logic beyond mathematics. Evolution is logical as levels in existence. Pirsig saw that there are indefinable emotions like love. "Definition" is not a metaphysical term but a physical term. Something in our experience remains indefinable DQ. I do not like the term "fundamental nature". I prefer "evolution" as levels in existence. Joe On 6/25/12 1:31 PM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> wrote: > But under it all, the fundamental nature of sq is DQ. 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
