[MD] relative

Wed Jan 11 07:42:19 PST 2012

Joe, Mark,

Hmm... I'd say emotions can be defined. They are romantic quality. Of  
course this alone does not say much. But generally, romantic quality  
is the intersection of the subjective patterns and the objective  
patterns. Defining romantic quality in this way solves the so-called  
symbol grounding problem.

The thing is, if you met a shaman who is trying to reach ultimate  
knowledge, and you asked him how to ride a bike, the shaman would --  
in all likelihood -- teach you to ride a bike. He would probably also  
regard that as nothing unusual, even though riding a bike is something  
that can never be reduced to mere words. His shamanhood is not about  
riding a bike.

But if you asked the shaman, what is Quality, he would say that does  
not belong to the realm of conventional truth, ie. static quality. And  
his shamanhood would be about things that are not conventional truths.

The ability to ride a bike, as a skill, also belongs to romantic  
quality. But it's not Dynamic. You can do it pretty consistently. It's  
not very mystic or something that would thorougly transform our way of  
life whenever we engage in it. It is maybe not reducible to words, but  
our senses still do somehow know how to do it. So it is something that  
persists in our memory and does not change, and as such, it is  
different from DQ.

I'm not sure what it means that feelings are of a lower evolutionary  
value than thoughts. Feelings, as romantic quality, do not belong to  
the cycle of morality in a similar way as thoughts (classical quality)  
do. Do subjective and objective quality actually _emerge_ from  
romantic quality, or do they simply intersect with it? I don't know...  
gotta think about that.

-Tuukka

Quoting Joseph Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net>:

> 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
>
>
> 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
>