Hi Joseph Quote "The logic of mathematics, defined experience, cannot logically validate indefinable emotions DQ/SQ."
Sorry i don't agree I am sensation(emotion) in the first place. Without sensation no existance. In a meta-physical/mathematecal system i can choose a dimension to represent that sensation. in wave equations describing resonance i choose that to be the real part of the wave equations. all real parts of wave equations can be added up to one emotional state in one moment now. The information is in the immaginairy dimension of the wave equation. added up this forms the information in the moment now which is experienced as differenciated. The DQ/SQ system doesn't say anything about the relationship between emotion and information but when you observe a woman you are in love with your hart starts pounding faster am i right? Eddo 2013/4/1 Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> > 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 > 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
