[MD] The case for an Uncreated Source

[Joseph Maurer]

On 8/6/09 11:31 PM, "markhsmit" <markhsmit at aol.com> wrote:

Hi Willblake2'

I use division by 0 to indicate that a particular use of mathematics,
division by 0 can produce indeterminate results.  Definitions are useful.

Joe


> Hi Joe,
> 
> I do not quite understand your analogy of division by 0
> 
> When one divides by 0 he is asking how many nothings make
> up a something.  It is not a restricted mathematical manipulation,
> or some indeterminate, it is just a nonsensical question.
> 
> However, if what I say is true, then what is "nothingness" for indeed
> that is something.  Nothingness therefore can evolve.  For this, I would
> say that Nothingness evolves into something.  The reverse is also true.
> 
> In this way Quality, which comes from nothingness, can indeed appear in the
> form
> of morality.  The question is then, does nothingness have any force before
> it becomes something, or is there an additional force beyond that
> which we now call Evolution?  Is Quality evolution, or is evolution Quality?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Willblake2
> 
> 
> On Aug 6, 2009, at 3:16:20 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> From:   "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau at sbcglobal.net>
> Subject:    Re: [MD] The case for an Uncreated Source
> Date:   August 6, 2009 3:16:20 PM PDT
> To: "moq_discuss at moqtalk.org" <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/4/09 11:27 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> [Ham]
> Did you mean to say that "the direction of evolution is morality"? If
> that's what you meant, and it seems to be what Pirsig is saying, then you
> have a different concept of morality than I do. For me, morality requires
> human judgment. It's society's convention for acceptable behavior based on
> the value-sensibility of its individual members. Without a sensible agent,
> there would be no realization of morality or value.
> 
> Hi Ham and all,
> 
> [Joe]
> Imho yes, evolution is a logical basis for morality. Philosophers agreed
> that something existed, since they exist. How does free will fit into that
> schematic? Pirsig¹s first slice of the metaphysical knife is DQ/SQ. There
> is something in our awareness that is not defined. He called it DQ. There
> is no compulsion from accepted meaning to choose the undefined. Through
> analogy or metaphor there is no compulsion to not choose the undefined. I am
> free to choose. I will examine undefined DQ very carefully through metaphor
> and analogy before I choose.
> 
> [Joe]
> In an age of emphasis on mathematical logic the subjective as undefined has
> restricted mathematical manipulations. I can¹t divide by 0 since the result
> is indeterminate. DQ is undefined and becomes 0 by default for modern
> mathematicians. According to MOQ I experience the undefined in evolution.
> This is indeterminate in mathematical computations. I find myself at a loss
> for words since there is no word for the undefined. If only the objective is
> true, division by 0, the undefined, is indeterminate, undefined. The error
> of trying to use objective logic for the indeterminate creates a denial for
> logic of the undefined.
> 
> [Joe]
> In your ontogeny you avoid division by 0 by creating an indeterminate
> knowledge of an uncreated essence. No division! I argue that I can have no
> direct experience of an uncreated essence. It is beyond my present level of
> evolution. There is a hint that further individual evolution has occurred..
> There are heroes!
> 
> [Joe]
> In the mathematical description of evolution the indeterminate of division
> by 0 necessitates manipulations in logic to insure that any division by 0,
> like evolution, is cancelled by its opposite before any conclusion can be
> reached. Evolution for an undefined subject is denied, only the object
> changes. MOQ logic correctly defines the subject in SOL.
> 
> [Joe]
> I do not know how to explain, mathematically, levels in existence. I have
> no calculus. The absolute is denied. Undefined DQ is dogma. In
> mathematical logic I deny definition for a metaphysically evolving hierarchy
> of levels. Might makes right.
> 
> [Joe]
> How does the individual evolve morally? The individual is aware of who
> he/she is. Etc. 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe
> 
>> Did you mean to say that "the direction of evolution is morality"? If
>> that's what you meant, and it seems to be what Pirsig is saying, then you
>> have a different concept of morality than I do. For me, morality requires
>> human judgment. It's society's convention for acceptable behavior based on
>> the value-sensibility of its individual members. Without a sensible agent,
>> there would be no realization of morality or value.
> 
> 
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 
> 
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/