[MD] Metaphysics and the mystic.

[118]

Hi Joe,
I am not sure what you mean by "intellectual abstraction".  The
intellect creates relationships, but these relationships are not
abstract, they are very real.  As real as the beauty of a flower.  If
by abstract you mean not solid, then I can point out that nothing is
"solid", until we define it and agree that such a designation is
useful towards our growing understanding.

Yes, MoQ creates and disperses such an understanding, I see no problem
with this.  As it makes its rounds, the understanding could become
more popular in number.  Once that is done it is possible to envision
a societal switch.  We have until December 21st to make this happen
(ha, ha).

Within such understanding are the levels in evolution, this is a
pretty normal practice in understanding.  That is, to provide a
concept and explain how it has meaning by relating it to what we
experience.  So, I am not sure what you mean by jump.  It is a
process.

If you are saying that evolution can be used to form a connection
between emotions, DQ and intellect DQ/sq, then I would say that is a
correct use of understanding, whether I agree or not.

Yes, the understanding provided by MoQ gives us a perception of DQ.

Yes, we humans are pretty mobile with our understandings, and we can
certainly propose a relationship between what we term definable and
undefinable knowledge.  Since we create these things they are at our
service in terms of what we want to do with them.  Just remember,
understanding is a creation which we grow.  We can influence how it
grows.  THAT it grows may not be in our control, but within the
control of the Intellectual Level.

No, evolution and understanding are not synonymous in my opinion.  But
certainly you could make them synonymous if you want.   You can define
these words in any way you want.  For us to agree we would have to be
convinced through rhetoric. If you do not need agreement, then no
convincing is necessary.  By your definition, they would certainly not
be synonymous.  The question would be, where do you want to take this
dichotomy?  Please continue with your creative process.

All in my opinion, of course.

Cheers,
Mark

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
> 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."
>
>
> 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