[MD] Freedom within structure.

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Joe --


> Hi Ham,
>
> Right back-at-you! Thanks!  If you view the MOQ as physics
> that is a misinterpretation.  If you view the MOQ as nonsense
> we can discuss it by exposing the validity for the reality hidden
> to the mathematical logic of physics, metaphysics.
>
> DQ/SQ as a metaphysical statement of defined/undefined reality
> is more logical and encompassing than SOM Subject/object
> reality.  The base in the theory of knowledge, abstraction, in
> SOM, has no logical capacity for a multi level principle in reality
> like evolution.  In SOM evolution is irrational.
> Change the metaphysics!
>
> Pirsig's insight, resulting in the DQ/SQ Metaphysics, exposed a
> logic for DQ/SQ where DQ is indefinable not irrational.
>
> MOQ used a realization of levels in existence beyond the scope
> of S/O, to explain multi levels in reality. MOQ replaces the
> logical base for reality in an S/O division in intellect only, to
> embrace all of reality in levels in existence.  If you are going to
> do metaphysics, do metaphysics!

I view the MoQ as neither physics nor metaphysics but as a euphemistic 
paradigm of differentiated existence.

To say that it is more logical to label what you can't explain "indefinable" 
and "redefine" the rest does not quality as metaphysics.  The natural 
sciences have defined the universe in empirical terms which is how it is 
experienced.  It doesn't need to be made into a metaphysics, but it must be 
encompassed within any metaphysical ontology.

What is "the logical basis for reality" that MoQ seeks to replace?  And does 
the author presume to know that "all of reality" is "levels in existence?

> A planet does not exist as a rose exists!  The planet has more
> possibilities, like supporting a rosebush. Definition, beyond opinion,
> is needed for intelligibility.  Faith is usually described as what is
> beyond intellectual logic, not what is non-existent.  Evolution is a
> new concept.  The theory of knowledge in MOQ, repairs a
> fault line in SOM by proposing evolution, not just sentience/
> objectivity as reality.

Joe, you can't define the unknown, which is why Pirsig refused to define his 
Quality.  And you can't make what you don't know logical.  What makes you so 
sure that intellectual logic is the 'end-all' of understanding?   Was the 
universe created so that it would be intellectualized as "logical"? 
Evolution may be a relatively new concept in the history of mankind, but 
even simple animals know that things appear, change, and disappear, which is 
the sequential process of nature as experienced.  Incidentally, I don't 
posit reality as sentience/objectivity.
That's the mode of reality we call existence.

> In SOM, evolution had no foundation in metaphysics before
> Pirsig described the wider, more embracing logic in MOQ.
>
> IMHO DQ/SQ, proposed reality in an emotional indefinable
> logic, evolution, followed by an intellectual definable logic S/O.
> This validated the knowledge of an evolutionary world much
> broader than the S/O world alone.

Indefinable emotions are the least logical phenomena I can think of. 
Moreover, what is the pressing need to "define" subject-object existence? 
It's the empirical reality that has been fully investigated and defined by 
Science.  An exception is the conscious self, but this is rejected by the 
MoQ.  So what do we gain by putting reality on an evolutionary time line and 
calling the concept "an emotional indefinable logic"?

> Evolution is described more clearly as levels in existence,
> rather than only as S/O reality.  Who cares?
>
> Metaphysics is not faith-based yet probes more deeply into
> the knowable than the mathematical logic of Physics.  In
> DQ/SQ logic, insight is an emotional tool that explains what
> is indefinable not what is irrational.

Insight is an emotional tool?  I view it as the capacity to abstract 
logically from experience.  I also view evolution as phases, periods, or 
epochs in the process of nature, rather than "levels".

> IMHO A Faith-based system Essence, accepts the order S/O,
> identifying the existence of knowing with the existence of being,
> instead of accepting as Aquinas did that intentional and real
> existence do not take up the same space. My brain is not even
> as big as the moon, and that's not even throwing the universe in
> for good measure.  It proposes that the intentional existence of
> knowledge mirrors real existence.

Thoughts, feelings, and concepts do not occupy space.  But what we know 
comes from the experience of things and events that do.  For me, 
"intentional existence" is the actualization of being from value 
sensibility.  Which means that material existence represents the value and 
meaning that we give it.

> The bridge is emotions.  If it doesn't exist it isn't real.  I can sense 
> it
> unless I am deceived.  Proof!

Again, your rhetoric eludes me.  What, exactly, does your "emotional bridge" 
prove?

Your ideas are interesting, Joe, but we're far from from being on the same 
page.

Have a pleasant Labor Day weekend,
Ham