[MD] First Division 2.0

[Joseph Maurer]

Hi Mark and all,

And away we Go!


On 3/5/12 9:39 PM, "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Joe,
> 
> 
> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
> Mark
> 
> On Mar 5, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> Hi David,
>> 
>> A logic of a metaphysics of DQ/SQ, begs the question:  How can an
>> indefinable DQ have meaning?
> 
> It doesn't, we create meaning through definitions.  The term undefinable is
> used so we do not get stuck in the static.  Nothing more in my opinion.
> 
>> In SOM S depends on O activity in the definition in existence.  S has no
>> definition in existence awaiting O's behavior.
> 
> Yes they go together in that paradigm.
> 
>> 
>> Different activities determine a reality manifesting existence.  Evolution,
>> a definable activity in existence, is not founded on deniable faith.  It
>> manifests a logic of activity.
> 
> Yes
>> 
>> The truth of reality in logic for metaphysics is a nightmare of deniability.
> 
> I'm not sure if I would agree.  We create  truth, we do not deny it.
> 
>> The reality of evolutionary levels in differences for S's manifestations is
>> deniable.  It awaits an interpretation of the manifestation in action.
> 
> Sure it can be denied through some logical construct.  What lies between
> subject and object is Intent.  Look to intent instead of S or O.  That
> resolved the issue, for me.
> 
>> Evolution is deniable.  No one can give what he doesn't have. Evolution as
>> the answer for levels in existence is deniable.  Physical logic instead of
>> indefinable metaphysics!
> 
> Sure it can be denied, but it can also bring meaning.
>> 
>> Pirsig tweaked S/O metaphysics by changing indescribable S to DQ, an
>> indefinable reality.  O as SQ remains.
> 
> I think so, the "self" is DQ.  It cannot be logically found or described, yet
> it exists.
>> 
>> DQ, indefinable reality, has a relationship to existence. DQ is not the same
>> as the S of SOM which sucks existence from O.
> 
> I think O sucks existence from S, although I would not put it that way.
> 
>> DQ has a place in indefinable
>> existence awaiting valuation not non-existence. SOM and MOQ.  DQ/SQ is a
>> statement of an indefinable/definable reality.
>> 
>> A statement of metaphysics: the concept of evolution describes reality in
>> existential differences as evolution in levels in existence.  DQ is
>> indefinable levels in existence. Indefinable not unknowable or non-existent!
>> 
>> MOQ, Evolution is not a reality in SOM. S exists independently from O in
>> reality.  DQ does not depend on SQ for existence. It creates a new paradigm
>> DQ/SQ where DQ is indefinable not non-existent, SQ is definable.
> 
> Yes, by your usage of evolution.  DQ does not depend on sq.
>> 
>> Imho  In MOQ different levels in reality in existence. Evolution has
>> meaning.  
>> 
>> SOM differs from MOQ in using Object as enabling possibilities in a Subject
>> without defining how the subject participates in evolution as a level in
>> existence.  
> 
> Yes
>> 
>> In SOM freewill, seeks another for further definition in existence. Without
>> the other it is not free.  It is orphaned in being removed from the
>> existence in the subject and highlighted as a special function in relation
>> to another instead of being the will of the subject.
>> 
> That makes sense to me.  Will is what lies between S and O.
> 
>> In SOM, levels in evolution have no foundation in the existence of the
>> subject.  They only have meaning in the object and have their meaningful
>> relationship to the subject through the object and evolution is meaningless.
>> Metaphysics of the known also follow the existence of the subject for unique
>> qualities like free will.
> 
> I think this is the distinction between sq and DQ.  The levels are a static
> presentation and DQ is not dependent on them.
>> 
>> I don't define DQ!  While pondering an indefinable existing reality emotions
>> shouted look at us!  The best of both worlds.
> 
> Cool, you should write poetry.
> Mark
>> 
>> Joe    
>> 
>> 
>> On 3/2/12 1:48 PM, "David Harding" <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Furthermore, why do you see value in defining the undefinable DQ as
>>> 'emotions'?
>> 
>> 
>> 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