[MD] relative

[mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net]

Joe,

Quoting Joseph Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net>:

> 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.

Tuukka:
Metaphysics describes existence among other things, such as knowledge  
and ethics. Only ontology describes solely existence, but Pirsig  
doesn't use that word often, if ever.

> Joe: 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.

Tuukka:
I can sympathise with your suggestion, but it can neither be proven  
nor disproven for reasons you probably know.

> Joe:
> 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.
>

Tuukka:
If evolution is undefinable, how could it be precise?

-Tuukka