[MD] Horse, Is this proper conduct?

[MarshaV]

On Mar 15, 2013, at 3:11 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> 
> If dynamic quality, reality, is unknowable why use the term?

Are you asking why RMP used language to explain the Metaphysics of Quality?


> There is a broad spectrum of the knowable.  What is unknowable describing?  

Since you think it is Dynamic Quality is knowable, you describe it?


> Limits of reality or limits of knowledge?

What are you referring to and in what context?


> To discuss unknowable reality seems futile.  

Okay.


> Supposing there is a broad spectrum to the unknowable, how can we discover it?  

To say the unknowable is a 'broad spectrum' seems to be assuming too much.  


> It seems to me discussion and unknowable are at odds unless you accept that
> indefinable and unknowable are synonymous.

This might be one way to think about indefinable and unknowable. 


> DQ is indefinable. IMHO Unknowable reality stretches the discussion of DQ
> metaphysics to a leap of Faith.  

It's a 'leap of faith' that when I wake up in the morning, put my feet on the floor and stand up that I won't fall through the flooring.  And?


> I would rather tweak rationality into the experience of indefinable
> DQ in consciousness rather than accept indefinable DQ as a leap of faith.

In considering a metaphysics - the nature of reality - I would prefer to dig deep rather than settle for tweaking rationality.  I might consider that "tweaking rationality" is best handled by holding static patterns of value as hypothetical (supposed but not necessarily real or true).  


Marsha



> 
> On 3/14/13 4:07 PM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Greetings Joe,
>> 
>> I am perfectly satisfied with understanding the MoQ designating Reality =
>> Value(Dynamic(indivisible, undefinable and unknowable)/static(divisible,
>> definable and knowable))  :-)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi MarshaV,
>>> 
>>> I am too old (80 plus) to remember philosophy.  I want to jump immediately
>>> to an indefinable as the limit on an aging process.  DQ is indefinable,
>>> always new, so to speak, and I am alive!
>>> 
>>> Joe
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 3/13/13 11:30 PM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hello Joe,
>>>> 
>>>> I wondered if you might agree with Nietzsche?
>>>> 
>>>> "Compared with music all communication by words is shameless; words dilute
>>>> and brutalize; words depersonalize; words make uncommon common."
>>>>        (Nietzsche, Friedrich,  'Will To Power')
>>>> 
>>>> re fa la
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 13, 2013, at 3:51 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi MarshaV,
>>>>> 
>>>>> IMHO How to describe a theory of knowledge in DQ/SQ experience?  DQ,
>>>>> indefinable self-consciousness along with definable SQ structure, enables
>>>>> self-directed activity.
>>>>> 
>>>>> SQ, defined reality, places the limit of definition on an indefinable DQ
>>>>> emotional self-consciousness.  Definitions aid communication.  Music is a
>>>>> more immediate less structured communication in its emotional origins.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What is logic?  The Intellect and freewill of activity are tied to a common
>>>>> limit, self-awareness.  I can't jump on my horse and ride off in all
>>>>> directions.  Logic describes limits on knowledge in the structure of self
>>>>> awareness DQ/SQ.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Music is an harmonious structure, more revealing in some ways in being less
>>>>> subject to SQ discipline than logic.  Music evokes more intensity in its
>>>>> indefinable emotional origins than intellectual logic.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Joe
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 3/13/13 12:40 AM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Schopenhauer believed that the mediations of art in general, but
>>>>>> particularly
>>>>>> music, were more directly able to reveal the nature of reality than was
>>>>>> philosophy.
>>