[MD] DQ/sq as WATER/ice

[Joseph Maurer]

Hi MarshaV and All,

The discussion embraces the path to knowledge without the analysis of the
theory of knowledge.  The logic of mathematics, defined experience, cannot
logically validate indefinable emotions DQ/SQ.

The SOM metaphysical suggestion of abstraction as the value of knowledge is
indefensible.  Knowledge is direct experience.

How does a theory of knowledge incorporate direct experience in definition?
Pirsig suggests that a sentient being perceives DQ/SQ.  DQ is indefinable
direct experience.  SQ is definable direct experience.

The metaphysical description is DQ/SQ.  The structure for experience is
DQ/SQ.  What separates DQ/SQ as the description of reality?  DQ is
indefinable, SQ is definable.

Understanding MOQ, the metaphysics of describing indefinable/definable
reality, can be somewhat vague.

DQ, indefinable, is not necessarily coupled to definable SQ in evolution!
It can stand alone, indefinable reality.   DQ/SQ tweaks the theory of
knowledge to a more complex metaphysical definable/indefinable structure in
direct experience.

IMHO Joe  


On 4/1/13 1:04 AM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> Joe,
> 
> Directly experiencing DQ is directly realizing that there is nothing (nothing
> divisible, definable and knowable) persisting from moment to moment.
> 
> 
> Marsha
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 31, 2013, at 3:53 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Marsha V, and All,
>> 
>> Fundamental nature needs some consideration in DQ/SQ metaphysics.  If
>> something is indefinable, there must be some congruent indefinable way to
>> perceive it.  I call that perception  DQ.  The conceivable conception is
>> definable SQ.
>> 
>> Jode
>> 
>> 
>> On 3/29/13 12:38 AM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hello Joe,
>>> 
>>> I understand the fundamental nature of static quality (determinate) to be
>>> Dynamic Quality (indeterminate).  With this being a good analogy of that
>>> relationship.
>>> 
>>> "Water is distinct from ice, but in the ice cube it is present: not as a fly
>>> might be trapped there, but _in the very ice_.  And yet when the ice cube is
>>> gone, the water remains.  Although we see water as ice, we do so not because
>>> it is there separately, to be seen from behind or apart from the cube."
>>> 
>>>       (Iain McGilchrist, 'The MASTER and his EMISSARY:
>>>              The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World', p.
>>> 452). 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Marsha 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mar 28, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi MarshaV and All,
>>>> 
>>>> I am confused!
>>>> 
>>>> Do you view dynamic (indefinable) quality and static (definable) quality as
>>>> having the same fundamental nature and only a difference in time or
>>>> location
>>>> for definition?
>>>> 
>>>> I observe a value in the definition of perception (individual) as different
>>>> from the definition of the conception of creation or evolution.
>>>> 
>>>> IMHO 
>>>> Metaphysical DQ/SQ makes possible an evolution of levels in existence.
>>>> 
>>>> Joe 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 3/28/13 8:53 AM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> For me, this is a good analogy for 'the fundamental nature of static
>>>>> quality
>>>>> is Dynamic Quality.'
>>> 
>  
>  
>  
> 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