[MD] Evolution

[Joseph Maurer]

On 3/3/10 9:25 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> On 3/02/10 at 7:58, Joseph Maurer wrote:
> 
>> Hi Ham and all
>> 
>> Negation evolution by the denial of extraneous possibilities
>> until you are left with the possible.  Not this, not that.
>> 
>> Evolution is the delineation of levels in existence.  What the
>> levels are, and their delineation can become a 'not this not that'
>> dialectic, in place of evolution itself which can only be positive.
>> 
>> Imho evolution identifies levels in existence.  The levels are
>> discrete. Evolution is indefinable DQ.  I like Bo¹s proposed
>> SOL for focusing on undefined levels in existence as arbiters
>> of reality rather than 'not this, not that'.  The undefined is
>> frequently wrongly negated.  Evolution cannot be negative!
>> It is the discernment of evolution through a dialectic of
>> 'not this not that' that becomes negative when there is no
>> metaphysical guidance.
> 
> Joe, I'm sorry but none of the above is comprehensible to me.  Having never
> heard the term "negation evolution", I don't know what it is and can only
> say that evolution is 'not that'.
> 
> As for "the levels" being discrete and evolution being "indefinable DQ", I
> suppose this represents your interpretation of the MoQ dogma.

Hi Ham and all,

[Joe]
> Negation evolution by the denial of extraneous possibilities
> until you are left with the possible.  Not this, not that.
 
This is how I understand your sense of ³negation²
 
[Joe]
> Evolution is the delineation of levels in existence. What the
> levels are, and their delineation can become a 'not this not that'
> dialectic, in place of evolution itself which can only be positive.
> 
> Imho evolution identifies levels in existence.  The levels are
> discrete. Evolution is indefinable DQ.  I like Bo¹s proposed
> SOL for focusing on undefined levels in existence as arbiters
> of reality rather than 'not this, not that'.  The undefined is
> frequently wrongly negated.  Evolution cannot be negative!
> It is the discernment of evolution through a dialectic of
> 'not this not that' that becomes negative when there is no
> metaphysical guidance.
 
[Ham]
Joe, I'm sorry but none of the above is comprehensible to me. Having never
heard the term "negation evolution", I don't know what it is and can only
say that evolution is 'not that'.
 
As for "the levels" being discrete and evolution being "indefinable DQ", I
suppose this represents your interpretation of the MoQ dogma.
 
[Joe]
Your use of the term ³dogma² indicates to me that you are not seeking truth
in conversation.  I hope you find an appreciative companion.
 
Joe

> Once more your rhetoric eludes me.  You start out by saying the emotions are
> DQ, implying that ideas (intellect?) are SQ.  From then on you've lost me.
> However, it strikes me that "something is wrong" when the word "negation" is
> associated with both suicide and genocide in the same post.  (I do hope you
> will lighten up your dialectic the next time.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Ham
> 
> 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