[MD] Betterness - 4 levels of!

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Mark,
sorry again, didn't meant to hit send yet!
Tim

On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 10:29:54 -0800, "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> said:
> Hi Tim,
> Any path must provide some kind of reasoning.  Any leading would result
> if
> we agree with such reasoning.  So don't worry about that.  The purpose of
> metaphysics is indeed to create a structure of understanding.  As Pirsig
> rightly says, such structure cannot encompass the whole and may be
> misleading to some.  The structure does provide something to discuss. 
> One
> can enter into the world of spirituality where things must be felt rather
> than objectivized.

[Tim]
I'm not sure what to make of spirituality here, but what I will say is
that intuition is needed when one is in a truely new environment,
because there is no rationale for choice within it.


> [Mark]  Even such a path requires structure.  So, yes, words
> do
> have a way of diminishing.  This is only true however, if the words are
> seen
> as the object itself.  There are ways of describing a beautiful painting
> which does not mean the painting is the words.  This is accepted.  The
> same
> thing can be accepted in metaphysics.  Words are descriptions to convey a
> personal understanding.  They cannot be more than that.  If such personal
> understanding is agreed upon by many it becomes known as truth.  It is
> here
> we must not go.

[Tim]
I'm not sure we must not go there.  It's just that we must be real real
careful because we will almost certainly never have it right.  remember
the monkeys from John's story, with the banana in the inner cage?
 
> [Mark] I fully understand Pirsig's difficulty with metaphysics.  Every
> metaphysician recognizes this.  Keeping it simple is one solution, but
> that
> has its limits in terms of growth and mainstreaming the concept.  Math is
> just an adventure, it does not create reality but gives ways of
> conversing
> about it.

[Tim]
is this to be accepted as True?  See the difficulty with Never?  I have
been toying with this idea of I-as-idea, or I-as-possibility, in this
realm math might be true...


> [Mark]
> One approach I have considered is to take Quality out of the equation. 
> In
> physics this is also done when Reality is taken out of the equation.  For
> example when describing the equality of energy and matter as Einstein
> does,
> he is not concerned with reality, but only how energy and matter equate
> within in it.  Einstein does not propose how energy becomes matter, he
> just
> states that it is possible.
> 
> If we assume that dynamic and static quality are the same thing (Quality)
> but interchange in appearance to us humans, a similar approach to
> Einstein's
> could be envisioned.  That is, that there are equations that relate the
> two.
>  These equations must be formed with concepts which are not as well
>  defined
> as energy or the speed of light squared (a constant), but can be done.  I
> am
> still working on that based on what I read in these posts.  Perhaps I
> will
> look like an idiot to others with my attempts.  So be it, I am willing to
> take that chance just to get feedback.
> 
> Mark

[Tim]
I feel real bad that I missed this; I don't know how I did because I was
really keeping track at the time!  Sorry.  Anyway, I would like to see
what you come up with.  For my part, I can't see what you mean by saying
static and dynamic are the same... but this conversation was a while ago
and I'm not in the flow.

dang, wish I wouldn't have missed this,
Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service