[MD] Hoy stoves and those who sit on them

[Joseph Maurer]

On 3/26/10 5:19 PM, "John Carl" <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi John'

I am confused about what I am saying.

Joe

> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Joseph Maurer <jhmau at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
> Ok.  I'm really confused now.  I thought indviduation WAS conceptualization
> of "1".  Reliant upon conception of otherness valued as "many", without
> which "1" can't even be conceieved.  Therefore, for Individuation or 1 to
> exist, valuation and otherness are both implicitly necessary.  A fundamental
> trio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> 
> But... "individuality necessary" logically implies a higher unified dualism
> - it takes relationship of the two for realization of either.
> 
> Or anything, really.
> 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