[MD] logically incoherent

[Ham Priday]

Hi Joe --

On Tues. 9/06/11 at 6:10 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:

> Hi Ham and All,
>
> "Nothing can exist--in the absence of a Primary Source."
> How does a Primary Source exist logically?  It can't, logic falters.
> Communication based in logic is abandoned.  DQ/SQ
> metaphysics is important in that it embraces DQ, an indefinable,
> not non-existent, element in logic.  Imho DQ/SQ, metaphysics
> is primary to logic.

A logical syllogism for the Primary Source:

    A.  No thing creates itself.
    B.  Created things are what exists.
.:  C.  Existence is the creation of a Primary Source.

I have no problem with the principle that logic only applies to 'existents', 
if that's what you're suggesting.  It would mean that the Primary Source, 
being "uncreated", technically is "non-existent"; i.e., does not exist.  (I 
have alluded to this semantic paradox in my on-line thesis.)   So, as you 
say, logic fails us in defining metaphysical reality.  However, simply 
"embracing" something indefinable, such as Quality, does not give it primacy 
to logic.

Also, you state that DQ is "not a non-existent element in logic."  By this 
double-negative you infer that DQ IS an element in logic.  Can you show me 
where or how Dynamic Quality (an indefinable term that Pirsig invented) is a 
logical element?

Otherwise, I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

[Joseph Maurer, on 9/7]:
> I have heard philosophers described as those who spend
> all day studying their navel!  I don't know if this describes
> their posture for contemplation, or if it describes the comfort
> of perceiving the scarred connection to a completed past
> reality, conception, manifesting in themselves!
>
> Pirsig's DQ/SQ metaphysics suggests to me that my navel,
> as the manifestation of birth, be connected to past genetics.
> His thought suggests that indefinable perception in a womb of
> metaphysics brings to birth the defined conception of all physics.
> This is a valid metaphysical analogy.  My! What a huge navel!

Again, the point (or moral?) of this exposition eludes me.  Can you explain 
its relevance to 'logical incoherence'?

Thanks, Joe,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

> On 9/5/11 10:10 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> NOTHING can exist -- not Evolution or its "levels", not the material
>> universe, not Quality or the emotions, not Intellect or Experience, not 
>> even
>> the conscious Self -- in the absence of a Primary Source.  I cite as my
>> logic for this premise the 'ex nihilo nihil fit' proposition of classical
>> philosophy, the empirical precept of  'first cause', and the metaphysical
>> principle that Heidegger formulated in the question "Why are there beings
>> rather than nothing?"