[MD] The hard question

[Joseph Maurer]

Hi Marsha and All,

Metaphysics have been around for awhile.  "Confusion" is a decent word.

Joe

On 6/2/12 1:37 AM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> 
> 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'?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
> 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