[MD] Evil in the Church of Reason

[John Carl]

kinda confused, here Joe.  did you just define DQ as a metaphysical
principle AND undefinable?  In the same sentence?  maybe you've spent too
much oxygen in choir practice and are feeling a bit dizzy.  I know it makes
me that way to read such self contradiction.  But then, I realize that other
people look at things differently.  Myself, I think I'll stick with the pure
realization that DQ is defined only in experience.

Take care,

John



On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Joseph Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
> DQ is a metaphysical principle, indefinable, and there is no metaphysical
> reality for DQ in definition e.g., emotions.  The failure is the attitude
> in
> logical discourse that everything must be defined like in mathematics,
> Imho.
>
> Joe
>
>
> On 8/12/11 11:39 AM, "Dan Glover" <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > We define the undefined all the time. We could say the process of
> > awareness is that process of defining. When we discover we've failed
> > to define some thing properly (a wrong conclusion) we're momentarily
> > at a loss. That sense of loss is the beginning response to Dynamic
> > Quality that leads to greater knowledge.
> >
> > In "echoing" John you are echoing a wrong conclusion. Perhaps it is an
> > opportunity for you both to learn from it... or not.
> >
> > Thank you,
>
>
> 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
>