[MD] LC Comments

[Joseph Maurer]

On 7/13/10 1:30 AM, "Magnus Berg" <McMagnus at home.se> wrote:

> Joe
> 
> You seem to use a completely own set of terms for levels, DQ and SQ, and
> I frankly can't understand much of it. However, in a recent post and
> also in this one it seems, you mention something like DQ *levels*? To
> me, that's a contradiction. There just can't be DQ levels, or DQ logic.
> 
> Also, if the scientific community is so heavily dependent on
> mathematical logic, then it should also be very interested in knowing
> about the metaphysical relevance of it.
> 
> Magnus

Hi Magnus and all,
 
Awhile back I posted: ³DQ is undefined not non-existent.²  There was
agreement about that statement.   Pirsig proposed 4 levels in evolution.  I
disagree.  I accept 7 levels in evolution using the seven-toned musical
scale template for sound as the analogy for a limited evolution of seven
levels with a shock required at mi-fa and si-do creating a template for a
reality of 9 intervals when the two shocks are included.
 
The logic for evolution demands a definition for 1.  There are two
definitions.  One conventional definition underlies hierarchical mathematics
SQ.  The second definition comes from evolution itself, which highlights an
evolving perceptible indefinable individuality.
 
The scientific community is reluctant to accept a defined evolution and
focuses on random SQ rather than the individuation of DQ/SQ.
 
Joe