[MD] Hoy stoves and those who sit on them

[Joseph Maurer]

On 3/24/10 8:33 PM, "John Carl" <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:

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:
 
Joe
>> 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.
 
John 
> 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
 
Joe
>  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.
> 
 
John 
> 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.
 
Joe
Evolution proposes individuation in the definition of an individual within a
level of existence. 1 has to be defined before the logic of mathematics SQ
can function.  Imho individuation comes before 1 and before DQ
 
Joe previously: 
>> 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.
 
 
John 
> 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 embody values, there would be no values to see.
 
Joe 
I don’t know how to ask a question, John, about “individuation” coming
before DQ?  Is there an analogy between the logic of a defined 1
establishing the logic for 2,3,4,etc. and undefined DQ establishing a logic
for evolution, SOL? If I say yes then what is prior to DQ?  I am at a loss
for words so I say ‘individuality’ necessary to DQ. Individuality and DQ
become separated.
> 
Joe previously 
>> I don¹t expect this is a surprising development, but it sure was a surprise
to me.
>> 
 
> 
John 
> 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


> John
> 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