[MD] relative

Wed Jan 11 11:56:21 PST 2012

Hi Tuukka and all,

A law of three for manifestation, a law of seven for order.  Metaphysics are
not physics.  The law of forces in reality, Active, Passive, Neutral
describe manifestation, physics (mathematics).

Metaphysics describe existence, a law of order.  Pirsig suggested DQ,
indefinable quality, along with SQ, definable quality were necessary
metaphysical principals in existence.  Indefinable is a limit of knowledge
not existence.  I suggest that evolution as levels in existence describes
the metaphysics of existence.

Pirsig decided S/O metaphysics was incapable of describing evolution, an
order in existence. S/O used Faith in an all powerful being as a
metaphysical argument.  With a Faith perspective metaphysics was not an
independent discipline and could not logically validate the conception of
evolution as levels in existences rather than creation.

Evolution is a concept of a more precise view of reality by being definable
as a law in order and did not require the appeal to creation by the
unknowable and hence all powerful super being of religion.

On 1/11/12 9:14 AM, "mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net" <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net>
wrote:

> Joe, all,
> 
> I have come to the conclusion that subjective and objective quality
> should emerge from romantic quality instead of merely intersecting
> with it. Otherwise normative quality will include elements of romantic
> quality, which is contrary to generally accepted notions of normativity.
> 
> I understand this is the opposite of what you said, but thank your for
> directing my mind to this.
> 
> -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
>> 
> 
> 
> 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