"Fundamental nature" is a mouthful! Is it a definition for reality? I
conceptualize "logic" as being unable to describe evolution in terms of
SQ/DQ, defined/indefinable reality.
Indefinable reality is individualized DQ and can only be described in
analogical terms. The acceptance of indefinable DQ reality reveals
sentience DQ/SQ.
In the past S/O was proposed as a logical (metaphysical) base. This placed
sentience in a horrible bind to define all of reality. This made definition
equal to a mathematical certainty, denying evolution. Creation was more
acceptable than metaphysics. Metaphysics is logic beyond mathematics.
Evolution is logical as levels in existence.
Pirsig saw that there are indefinable emotions like love. "Definition" is
not a metaphysical term but a physical term. Something in our experience
remains indefinable DQ. I do not like the term "fundamental nature". I
prefer "evolution" as levels in existence.
