[MD] Another parallel

[Joseph Maurer]

On 7/17/09 1:43 PM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

Hi Marsha,

Thank You!  You are closer to an awareness of a creation in existence than I
am.  I was present at the moment of birth, but that was a presence at the
first breath, not the first moment of existence.   For that reason I accept
your judgments about existence.

For me  ³I am² defines the undefined ³I think² in the argument ³I think,
therefore I am.²   Imho there-fore is not causal.  I am a sentient defines
the undefined ³I think² which remains perceptual but not conceptual.  ³I
think² is undefined, there has to be an object: ³I think this² for it to be
conceptual.  ³I am² is only perceptual.  I can¹t define myself.

And, of course, I may have that whole thing backwards.

Is evolution a perception in existence? I can¹t define existence although I
perceive it.  I can¹t define evolution although I perceive an ordered
existence I call evolution.

I would guess that Werner is forhadowing perception and conception in
evolution.

Into the hot water from the gitgo.

Imho Joe

> Hi Joe, 
> 
> Indivisible, undefinable and unknowable.
> 
> Once the MoQ is experienced as a symphony, the score becomes only an
> intellectual pattern.  Been thinking about this all day long.
> 
> Not sure about Descartes' "I think therefore I am.", but I see myself more
> clearly when I stop thinking.
>  
> Because of the Uncertainty Principle, Werner Heisenberg is my hero.  You are
> too, of course.  He said, " Every word or concept, clear as it may seem to
> be, has only a limited range of applicability."
> 
> 
> Marsha