[MD] relative

[Joseph Maurer]

Hi Mark,

I have great admiration for you!

Joe


On 1/9/12 3:03 PM, "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Joe,
> 
> I have to say that I like the way you think.  I kind of have to read
> your posts out of the corners of my eyes to be involved in your
> diction.
> 
> There is another reason why DQ "must" remain undefined, although it is
> not nearly as interesting.  Whenever something is defined, it presents
> what that thing is and what it is not.  This kind of definitional
> encarceration places DQ within an sq framework, which it is not.  The
> point is, DQ is not sq.  Therefore, it cannot be defined, by
> definition :-).
> 
> Having said that, we can postulate what are some of its aspects.  One
> of those would be that it is not sq, of course.  Another would be that
> it produces.  Such production can, of course, encompass a great number
> of things, including all of reality.  (It can also encompass
> everything else (heh, heh).  Another would be that it gives the
> appearance of change in terms of its "effects".  It is not a force,
> but often it can be analogized as such.  So, while we do not define,
> we can know.
> 
> We can wrap up DQ with so many definitions that we would no longer be
> able to see it.  In this way definitions hide DQ.  It would be like
> wrapping up a surprise, since once you open it, you realize it has
> nothing to do with the wrapping paper.  However, every "present" must
> be wrapped in order to pass it along.  So that is what we do,
> bundle-up and deliver.  What we deliver is kind of like one of those
> audio tapes that you take with you on a tour of the city.  The audio
> provided is very different from the visual you get when you walk
> around the city, but both go together.
> 
> Oh, and DQ is NOT whatever you want it to be, for that would make it
> relative, which we know it is not.  However, it can be considered
> relative by those who need it to be, what a waste!
> 
> On 1/9/12, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
>> Hi Tuukka;
>> 
>> DQ/SQ Indefinable/definable.  I want to play with words!  Indefinable DQ is
>> Pirsig's insight into the perception of evolving reality.  Everything?  No
>> just indefinable reality.  What is the common name for indefinable reality?
>> I suggest emotions.  My brother could always get my sisters upset by
>> declaring:  Women don't think, they feel!
>> 
>> Thoughts are definable SQ, physics.  Emotions are indefinable DQ
>> metaphysics.  Reality is DQ/SQ.
>> 
>> Metaphysics cannot be modeled by Mathematics which for certainty follows a
>> rule of the rigid logic of numbers.  Analogy and Metaphor uses words for
>> greater insight in emphasizing emotional DQ's place in the description of
>> reality.
>> 
>> There are indefinable markers for DQ (indefinable) emotional reality,
>> definable markers SQ for words, DQ/SQ metaphysics.
>> 
>> Why are feelings of a lower evolutionary value than thoughts?  Instinct seem
>> to be of less value since it is less rigidly logical than intellectual
>> definition in truth seeking. The markers defining emotional reality are more
>> obscure in being perceivable though indefinable, than the definable markers
>> for logic at the intellectual level.  DQ/SQ!
>> 
>> I would guess there is more precision needed to manipulate indefinable
>> feelings (drama) than definable thoughts (script). Thoughts have definable
>> metaphysical value and emotions have indefinable metaphysical value
>> 
>> Many see DQ as unknowable since it is indefinable.  The question I have: Are
>> emotions definable?  I say no! and accept emotional markers in DQ!
>> 
>> Joe
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/8/12 3:14 PM, "Tuukka Virtaperko" <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>> Joe:
>>>> 
>>>> The concept of Evolution, something indefinable in the sense of levels in
>>>> existence, without appealing to creation, interests me.  Evolution is not
>>>> something from nothing, but something embracing a sense of order and
>>>> individuality.  I prefer the musical Do,Re, Mi etc. as a model for order.
>>> 
>>> Tuukka:
>>> 
>>> Okay. Then you perhaps even are a mystic. I feel what you mean but don't
>>> know it.
>> 
>> 
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html