Hi MarshaV and All, The discussion embraces the path to knowledge without the analysis of the theory of knowledge. The logic of mathematics, defined experience, cannot logically validate indefinable emotions DQ/SQ.
The SOM metaphysical suggestion of abstraction as the value of knowledge is indefensible. Knowledge is direct experience. How does a theory of knowledge incorporate direct experience in definition? Pirsig suggests that a sentient being perceives DQ/SQ. DQ is indefinable direct experience. SQ is definable direct experience. The metaphysical description is DQ/SQ. The structure for experience is DQ/SQ. What separates DQ/SQ as the description of reality? DQ is indefinable, SQ is definable. Understanding MOQ, the metaphysics of describing indefinable/definable reality, can be somewhat vague. DQ, indefinable, is not necessarily coupled to definable SQ in evolution! It can stand alone, indefinable reality. DQ/SQ tweaks the theory of knowledge to a more complex metaphysical definable/indefinable structure in direct experience. IMHO Joe On 4/1/13 1:04 AM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Joe, > > Directly experiencing DQ is directly realizing that there is nothing (nothing > divisible, definable and knowable) persisting from moment to moment. > > > Marsha > > > > On Mar 31, 2013, at 3:53 PM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Marsha V, and All, >> >> Fundamental nature needs some consideration in DQ/SQ metaphysics. If >> something is indefinable, there must be some congruent indefinable way to >> perceive it. I call that perception DQ. The conceivable conception is >> definable SQ. >> >> Jode >> >> >> On 3/29/13 12:38 AM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hello Joe, >>> >>> I understand the fundamental nature of static quality (determinate) to be >>> Dynamic Quality (indeterminate). With this being a good analogy of that >>> relationship. >>> >>> "Water is distinct from ice, but in the ice cube it is present: not as a fly >>> might be trapped there, but _in the very ice_. And yet when the ice cube is >>> gone, the water remains. Although we see water as ice, we do so not because >>> it is there separately, to be seen from behind or apart from the cube." >>> >>> (Iain McGilchrist, 'The MASTER and his EMISSARY: >>> The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World', p. >>> 452). >>> >>> >>> Marsha >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mar 28, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi MarshaV and All, >>>> >>>> I am confused! >>>> >>>> Do you view dynamic (indefinable) quality and static (definable) quality as >>>> having the same fundamental nature and only a difference in time or >>>> location >>>> for definition? >>>> >>>> I observe a value in the definition of perception (individual) as different >>>> from the definition of the conception of creation or evolution. >>>> >>>> IMHO >>>> Metaphysical DQ/SQ makes possible an evolution of levels in existence. >>>> >>>> Joe >>>> >>>> >>>> On 3/28/13 8:53 AM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> For me, this is a good analogy for 'the fundamental nature of static >>>>> quality >>>>> is Dynamic Quality.' >>> > > > > 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
