[MD] The hard question

[MarshaV]

Hi Joe,

There seems to be a confusion in conceptually differentiating between experiencing directly the undifferentiated with no information and experiencing directly the perceptual (sounds, sights, feelings, smells & taste) with its new information?  I see the difficulty, but isn't the purpose of philosophy to address this type of problem?  And it is about radical empiricism, isn't it?  What should be sacrificed?

Ever wonder what answers would appear with a different set of questions?  Reminds me of the "measurement problem".


Marsha

 




On Jun 2, 2012, at 2:15 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> 
> Hi Joe,
> 
> How do perceptions and the apparatus that shape them interact with patterns?  Do they co-evolve?
> 
> 
> Marsha 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 1, 2012, at 2:46 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Marsha,
>> 
>> Metaphysics formats our experience of reality.  Pirsig observed DQ/SQ in his
>> experience.  He observed that DQ/SQ described the experience of reality.
>> Emotions are not thoughts like S/O. Emotions and thoughts differentiate
>> reality, DQ/SQ.  
>> 
>> It is difficult for me to accept that in a DQ/SQ format of metaphysics, DQ
>> is unknowable.  Indefinable is not unknowable.  I want DQ to be experienced
>> emotionally.  This values indefinable emotions, in the DQ/SQ conception of
>> metaphysics.
>> 
>> I feel your statement:
>> 
>>>>> There is nothing to say about DQ, the Ultimate Truth.  It is indeterminate.
>>>>> Do you not understand 'indivisible, undefinable and unknowable'?
>> 
>> is confusing the indefinable with "unknowable" which would negate Pirsig's
>> use of DQ in discriminating reality DQ/SQ.  Emotions are perceived.  They
>> are conceived descriptively in metaphor and analogy.
>> 
>> Joe  
>> 
>> 
>> On 5/31/12 1:14 PM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Joe,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Joe,
>>> 
>>> I consider perceptions to be experiences of the senses: seeing, tasting,
>>> touching, smelling and hearing.  Are you using the term to mean something
>>> different?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Marsha
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On May 31, 2012, at 2:06 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Marsha and All,
>>>> 
>>>> I want to consider the difference between emotional perception and
>>>> intellectual conception.
>>>> 
>>>> For myself emotional perception is DQ.  There is no way to confine
>>>> individualized emotional perceptions to a definition.  Emotions stand alone.
>>>> The DQ perception of evolving reality as levels in existence is indefinable.
>>>> 
>>>> Intellectual conception SQ is perceived in a definable concept differing
>>>> from the indefinable evolutionary perception of reality.  The intellect is
>>>> able to define evolution, static levels in existence.  Remarkably people
>>>> usually walk upright on two legs.
>>>> 
>>>> Joe
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 5/30/12 9:40 PM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> There is nothing to say about DQ, the Ultimate Truth.  It is indeterminate.
>>>>> Do you not understand 'indivisible, undefinable and unknowable'?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>