[MD] The Greeks?

[Mary]

Hi Joe,

Of all the people who post here I struggle more with yours than anyone
else's.  I have grown to admire and respect your posts very much while
simultaneously failing to understand them.  Did you already know that?  Are
you for real or putting me on?  I ask for one person to answer one question.
You oblige and the number one looms large in your reply.  I'm captured and
keep reading, but the farther in the less I understand.  Your sentences have
an ambiguous quality.  A glimpse of the familiar in a sea of something else.
Your meaning is out of reach unless it isn't.  To grasp at one familiar
floating plank is to lose the rescue ship passing by, and I still don't know
which is the mistake.  That is why I distrust my own understanding.  You
have fooled me before so why should believe I understand you now?  Should I
think you meant the first way I understood you or the second, the third, or
the way I haven't thought of yet?

I start to play games with these sentences.  As you read them to yourself,
you can completely change the meaning depending on where you pause and where
you put emphasis.  It can be hilarious, but it's not you I'm laughing at,
it's me.  

Very best,
Mary

> 
> Imho until evolution is tidied up a bit, it is impossible to put
> boundaries
> on the levels.   I prefer to see evolution as levels in existence.
> How
> many different ways can a particle exist? For logic there has to be 1,
> a
> starting point.  This is obscure since there are two ways to conceive
> of 1,
> SQ defined and 1, undefined DQ the level of evolution, difference,.
> Many
> bad questions may be on topic.  ³What Œpurpose of its own¹ does symbol
> manipulation serve?²
> 
> One is a metaphysical term.  Metaphysics creates logic undefined DQ,
> and
> embraces logic defined SQ.  One is also an evolutionary term in that
> the
> boundaries of the different levels in the evolved individual are
> undefined
> DQ.  A logical conclusion has two sources, mathematics and evolution.
> Pirsig saw that DQ undefined, SQ defined, was a more understandable
> division
> than the subject/object of traditional metaphysics.  1 is both
> undefined and
> defined.  Undefined 1 DQ as Matt described in his DQ, DQ DQ, etc. essay
> is
> an answer to a questioned boundary.  I appreciate that he was
> describing, in
> many ways, the undefined element in many questions like: ŒWhat is
> evolution?¹
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> 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