On 1/30/12, Joseph Maurer <jhmau@comc...> wrote:
> Hi Mark and All,
> Metaphysics DQ/SQ is a format for describing reality.
> Imho evolution is a metaphysical format of existence. I accept DQ as
> indefinable reality in a logic describing evolution. DQ is outside of
> subjective definable logic! Metaphysics and physics! Imho I experience the
> indefinable in the evolution of levels in existence DQ and definable SQ.
You could perhaps define DQ as "something which you experience"
> The metaphysical format of an indefinable is beyond conceptual experience.
> It is not beyond reality. Can I describe DQ as metaphysical experience? DQ
> perception perceives the logical reality in the metaphysical format of
> indefinable DQ, definable SQ.
The term metaphysical experience is interesting. I am not sure what
you mean by that. Experience brings about metaphysics as far as I can
tell. You are describing DQ as perception, which is another
definition, which is fine with me. I would not say that DQ perception
is the logical reality, rather that DQ creates the logical reality.
This creation has the proposals of DQ and sq. Here we are stating
that DQ creates what we then term DQ. Which is somewhat paradoxical.
I have been dealing with this as well using set theory. However, I
tend to agree with you.
> Imho There is a logic in evolution. The format lies between physics DQ/SQ
> and metaphysics DQ. DQ as indefinable is beyond definable conceptual
> mathematical reality. Metaphysics MOQ describes the format for a
> metaphysics including indefinable evolution. So much for mathematical
> dominance! I can experience the indefinable reality in metaphysical logic.
> Word play!
Being a biologist, I would say that logic creates what we term
evolution. Both physics DQ/SQ and metaphysics DQ are logical
constructs which we use to explain Quality. Anything we cannot
conceptualize can be considered beyond mathematical reality, although
I do not know what you mean by the word "beyond". For example, is
Love beyond mathematical reality? We cannot define Love can we?
There is nothing dominating about mathematics no matter what those
priests in physics tell you. Math is a representation, not the real
thing. The constellations do not dominate the stars. Which part of
reality would you consider indefinable? If it is indefinable we
cannot point to it or even consider its presence within an
intellectual discussion. Perhaps you mean: "That which we can never
approximate logically, even through exclusion". Exclusion would be:
"Indefinable reality is everything that is not definable". Of course
this is a definition so we negate our very statement.. Of course that
is a nonsense statement, since I am simply puttin exactly the same
things on both sides of the equation, i.e. A=A.
Of course with mathematics we are simply saying that A=A, we just
express A in two different ways such as 1+1=2. Both sides are
equivalent. This is how math works, finding different ways to express
equivalency in ways that are useful to us.
Word play indeed, but what else do we have? Wordplay gives us meaning
and purpose, so it is very important and revealing. It is what makes
us human, and we can certainly glory in that.
> DQ is indefinable not unknowable.
If you mean knowable in the sense that your proprioception is "known",
then I agree.
> I become constricted by describing definable reality! Physics with
> mathematical logic does not describe DQ the indefinable reality in DQ/SQ
> metaphysics. Definition is SQ, the logic SOM, not MOQ!
Describing reality is a creative process, for me it guards against
constriction and provides freedom. I can create anything I want.
Getting others to agree with me is sometimes the problem. I am
constricted by Western thought processes, and those who claim they
best describe reality.
> Metaphysics is a word full of meaning. DQ is indefinable yet knowable
> thereby including indefinable reality enhancing our experience. There is
> reality in knowing the indefinable DQ.
For me, metaphysics is a label for what each and everyone of us create
when we contemplate "what lies behind or beneath as something that all
cannot agree on as real". Otherwise it is just physics. Physics is a
very strong agreement. You know, what goes up MUST come down.
> On 1/29/12 4:12 PM, "118" <ununoctiums@gmai...> wrote:
>> Hi Joe,
>> As far as I can tell, there are two ways to describe this question.
>> The first is "how do we KNOW?" This can perhaps be approached from
>> the structural, material point of view. In this we can trace nerve
>> activity and surmise that knowing involves the chemistry of the brain
>> is some way. People have mixed in electromagnetic theory, and the
>> temporary appearance of neural patterns which light up. When the
>> brain is dead, it appears as if the person does not "know" in such a
>> case. Although this is far from settled. This knowing can be
>> considered as a "pattern" which is a popular word in this forum, and
>> may be the MoQ answer. A hurricane is a pattern, while it is blowing
>> the hurricane is present. Things that we do not know do not have a
>> wind associated with them, but such a storm can always arise, under
>> the right conditions.
>> The second view delivered by the question is: "how do WE know/". This
>> is, in my view, a more interesting question. This is perhaps the more
>> perennial question that you alude to. That is, why do we as
>> individuals view the world through the particular bodies which we
>> have? What is it that makes this particular body mine? This form of
>> knowing is difficult to imagine in a logical sense. It implies that
>> each individual's existence has a spark from somewhere else, since
>> there is no place this Self can exist. Questioning this Self in a
>> rigorous fashion gives the impression that the Self does not exist.
>> Of course this is nonsense since we know we exist. Unless you want to
>> play around with the word "existence" to make it meaningless. You
>> cannot find a motorcycle by taking it apart and analyzing all of its
>> components, to see where exactly it is. You cannot find the self for
>> the same reasons. Yet, we know that a home exists. We know that we
>> know; I Am, therefore I think. We cannot know about such "knowing"
>> since it is the "knowing" that gives the knowing our identity.
>> My answer is: Who knows, but it is fun to contemplate. Something
>> mysterious, outside of science and logic. Perhaps spiritual
>> rationalism will give us a better answer.
>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Joseph Maurer <jhmau@comc...> wrote:
>>> Hi Mark and All,,
>>> How do we know things? Has been a metaphysical question from the get-go.
>>> don't remember how Socrates dealt with that. Plato proposed a world of
>>> ideas that we contact...Aristotle proposed that the mind abstracts the
>>> essence from the image of the thing in the imagination and gives the
>>> abstraction an intentional existence in the mind to manipulate as ideas.
>>> Voila! Knowledge! Aquinas ran with that definition of abstraction. This
>>> how I remember the metaphysics I studied 65 years ago.
>>> On 1/29/12 12:25 PM, "118" <ununoctiums@gmai...> wrote:
>>>> I am not sure what you mean by "intellectual abstraction".
>>> 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 >
> 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.