[MD] Hoy stoves and those who sit on them

[John Carl]

hey Joe,

I don't dabble in these dark waters much, but ever once in a while a fishie
catches my eye and I dive after it.

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Joseph Maurer <jhmau at sbcglobal.net> wrote:


> Hi Andre and all,
>
> I agree you don¹t get much clarity about ³essence² when you look at it all
> by itself.   However, Œindividuality¹ strikes a note for ³essence² as a
> level in existence.


I wonder at "level" but there is something in what you say.  I'd term it,
"individuality strikes a note for essence in experience", but that's a minor
word quibble.


I'm leaning for the fundament of the threesome, essence, individual and
value, these days.  Just because it seems like a good idea.  But I haven't
thought it all out yet.

But I appreciate your phrasing, "strikes a note for".

rings true to me.

All the rest, sad to say, is lost to me.  I don't see what you could
possibly mean by reified "individuality" participating in anything.

Did you perhaps mean rather, "individuation"?  That might make sense.


But please, Never mind.  I don't think the deep end of the murky seas are
for me.

John in the shallows

 When I was pondering evolution I accepted a hierarchy
> of levels in existence.  ³Individuality² participates in all those levels.
> Indeed, ³individuality² trumps DQ in every case where evolution proposes a
> different individual level in existence.


Where evolution proposes individuation, Valuation proposes a judgement.
Without a thumbs up from valuation, the individual fades.  I don't see this
as individuality trumping DQ.  Just the opposite.



> The individual exists.  DQ exists
> in the individual.  I was flabbergasted at the dependent role that DQ plays
> to ³individuality².  There is no way of knowing DQ apart from the
> ³individual².
>


Well all this doesn't seem too flabbergasting to me.  More like, "duh".  But
that's probably because of the murky waters problem of not even
understanding what you're saying much of the time.

As far as DQ's dependency on individuality, it's a mutual thing, not a
hierarchical, but absolutely I agree that its a co-dependent relationship,
and without the individual to perceive values, there wouldn't be any values
to see.




> I don¹t expect this is a surprising development, but it sure was a surprise
> to me.
>
> Joe


And there's the real treasure in life, Joe.  Surprise!  Or as somebody
famous once said, "the most important thing you will ever make is a
realization."

Take care,

John