[MD] relative

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Joe,
> Joe:
>
> The theory of evolution describes a metaphysical truth. I am unsure how you
> perceive evolution!

Tuukka:
That's pretty wild, if you mean biological evolution. Do you?

> Joe:
>
> Aristotle described SOM (Subject/Object/Metaphysics) as the basis of
> knowledge, metaphysics.  SOM's theory of knowledge follows the definition of
> a process of abstraction.  Aristotle described knowledge as the mind
> abstracting the essence from a being and giving it intentional existence as
> a concept in the mind.  "Intentional existence" "essence" "abstraction"!
> These words are very hard to define!

Tuukka:
Nahh... I don't think they're hard. Intensions and extensions aren't 
completely easy, though. Yeah and there's induction and deduction and 
bla bla. But Aristotle isn't like the Man Responsible for metaphysics. 
Even if he had created all of metaphysics, which he didn't, he couldn't 
account for all of what it's now.

> Joe:
>
> Metaphysics developed by Aristotle is a study of reality beyond sensual
> physical perception!

Tuukka:
Why do people keep saying that? Wasn't Plato the guy who did that?

> Joe:
> Pirsig's theory of knowledge is Quality, a direct perception of DQ
> indefinable reality, quality, and SQ definable reality, quality, MOQ.

Tuukka:
Is that a list of things or a list of sequences in an algorithm? 
Something else?

> Joe:  The difference in individuality or perception is evolution.  In trying to
> conceptualize evolution and individuality I prefer to accept levels in
> existence MOQ rather than the proposed levels in essence SOM.

Tuukka:
Talk about unconventional grammar. I don't comment something I don't 
understand.

> Joe: I accept
> Essence as indefinable.  Imho Essence is without boundaries in evolution and
> indefinable.  The individual is definable

Tuukka:
Yeah...

> Joe:
> SOM is discredited if we do not know what we are talking about.

Tuukka:
Does THIS discredit SOM?

DFGDFGDFGDbdfbdfbdfdföäå¨å¨å¨åå

> Joe:
> Pirsig described DQ as knowable though indefinable, and SQ as knowable and
> definable.  Knowledge is king.
>
>

Tuukka:
Sure, that's what the Gnostics called "knowledge". In that sense, 
"ultimate knowledge" was also known in the Western world, before the 
non-Gnostics began persecuting Gnostics and had killed nearly all of 
them in ca. 1000 AD, and then they evolved into modern Christians. The 
Gnostics were spiritually in the right path, except that it's silly to 
have a Gnostic church because what they were doing should have been 
shamanism, and shamans who are good enough to have something to do 
rarely have time to participate in the affairs of such an institution.

Some people are good in mysticism. Sure. But Aristotle wasn't that much 
of a mystic. You have not yet seemed like a mystic. You can have that 
kind of knowledge and preach it all you wish but bear in mind, that 
nobody knows exactly what that is. You think it's a safeguard against 
the Church of Reason? Do you? Well, look what happened to Christianity. 
It's not even the Church of Reason. Nowadays it's mostly just a Church. 
You don't win the game by refusing to play in the first place.

-Tuukka