[MD] Metaphysics and the mystic.

[Joseph Maurer]

Hi DMB and All,

Is understanding an intellectual abstraction?  Understanding decides the
relationship of true or false in perception.  Certainly the metaphysics of
Quality proposes the understanding of all of reality DQ/SQ.

To make the jump that "understanding" includes all levels in evolution
places DQ in understanding.  That seems to be a stretch.  Understanding can
follow relationships in logic.  There are metaphysical relationships in
understanding, e.g., levels in evolution.

There is a connection, evolution, in the understanding of emotions, DQ and
intellect DQ/SQ.  

"Understanding" describes relationships in knowledge which include
descriptions in the perception of indefinable DQ.  How do I understand
evolution?  Should I accept levels in evolution as describing levels in
existence in a hierarchy?

"Understandings" are relationships of order which includes the perception
that DQ is indefinable.  I understand that DQ is indefinable.  Is
understanding mobile enough to observe a relationship between indefinable
and definable knowledge?  Perception and understanding are not synonymous.

Understanding can be indefinable in the logic DQ/SQ.  Understanding is a
comparison.  Certainly a rock has no understanding.

Evolution and understanding are not synonymous.  One is a description of
levels in existence, the other a true/false measure of insight and logic.

Joe



On 1/27/12 5:52 PM, "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Well, yes the term "understanding" CAN certainly refer to conceptual
> understanding but the word also means "sympathetic awareness", "overall
> assessment" or "judgement". There is enough flexibility with this word that
> Pirsig can use it in sentence as a contrast with intellectual things like
> definitions and abstractions. "Quality doesn't have to be defined. You
> understand it without definition, ahead of definition. Quality is a direct
> experience independent of and prior to intellectual abstractions."