[MD] Metaphysics and the mystic.

[Joseph Maurer]

Hi Mark and All,
 
Metaphysics DQ/SQ is a format for describing reality.  
 
Imho evolution is a metaphysical format of existence.  I accept DQ as
indefinable reality in a logic describing evolution.  DQ is outside of
subjective definable logic!  Metaphysics and physics!  Imho I experience the
indefinable in the evolution of levels in existence DQ and definable SQ. 
 
The metaphysical format of an indefinable is beyond conceptual experience.
It is not beyond reality.  Can I describe DQ as metaphysical experience?  DQ
perception perceives the logical reality in the metaphysical format of
indefinable DQ, definable SQ. 
 
Imho There is a logic in evolution. The format lies between physics DQ/SQ
and metaphysics DQ.  DQ as indefinable is beyond definable conceptual
mathematical reality.  Metaphysics MOQ describes the format for a
metaphysics including indefinable evolution.  So much for mathematical
dominance!  I can experience the indefinable reality in metaphysical logic. 
Word play!
 
DQ is indefinable not unknowable. 
 
I become constricted by describing definable reality!  Physics with
mathematical logic does not describe DQ the indefinable reality in DQ/SQ
metaphysics.  Definition is SQ, the logic SOM, not MOQ!
 
Metaphysics is a word full of meaning.  DQ is indefinable yet knowable
thereby including indefinable reality enhancing our experience.  There is
reality in knowing the indefinable DQ.
 
Joe



On 1/29/12 4:12 PM, "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Joe,
> As far as I can tell, there are two ways to describe this question.
> The first is "how do we KNOW?"  This can perhaps be approached from
> the structural, material point of view.  In this we can trace nerve
> activity and surmise that knowing involves the chemistry of the brain
> is some way.  People have mixed in electromagnetic theory, and the
> temporary appearance of neural patterns which light up.  When the
> brain is dead, it appears as if the person does not "know" in such a
> case.  Although this is far from settled.  This knowing can be
> considered as a "pattern" which is a popular word in this forum, and
> may be the MoQ answer.  A hurricane is a pattern, while it is blowing
> the hurricane is present.  Things that we do not know do not have a
> wind associated with them, but such a storm can always arise, under
> the right conditions.
> 
> The second view delivered by the question is: "how do WE know/".  This
> is, in my view, a more interesting  question. This is perhaps the more
> perennial question that you alude to.  That is, why do we as
> individuals view the world through the particular bodies which we
> have?  What is it that makes this particular body mine?  This form of
> knowing is difficult to imagine in a logical sense.  It implies that
> each individual's existence has a spark from somewhere else, since
> there is no place this Self can exist.  Questioning this Self in a
> rigorous fashion gives the impression that the Self does not exist.
> Of course this is nonsense since we know we exist.  Unless you want to
> play around with the word "existence" to make it meaningless.  You
> cannot find a motorcycle by taking it apart and analyzing all of its
> components, to see where exactly it is.  You cannot find the self for
> the same reasons.  Yet, we know that a home exists.   We know that we
> know; I Am, therefore I think.  We cannot know about such "knowing"
> since it is the "knowing" that gives the knowing our identity.
> 
> My answer is: Who knows, but it is fun to contemplate.  Something
> mysterious, outside of science and logic.  Perhaps spiritual
> rationalism will give us a better answer.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark
> 
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
>> Hi Mark and All,,
>> 
>> How do we know things? Has been a metaphysical question from the get-go.  I
>> don't remember how Socrates dealt with that.  Plato proposed a world of
>> ideas that we contact...Aristotle proposed that the mind abstracts the
>> essence from the image of the thing in the imagination and gives the
>> abstraction an intentional existence in the mind to manipulate as ideas.
>> Voila! Knowledge!  Aquinas ran with that definition of abstraction.  This is
>> how I remember the metaphysics I studied 65 years ago.
>> 
>> On 1/29/12 12:25 PM, "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I am not sure what you mean by "intellectual abstraction".
>> 
>> 
>> 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