[MD] The other side of Value

[Joseph Maurer]

Hi Ham;

On the contrary I find the "indefinable" full of meaning, since it forces me
to ask: How do I know?  If I reply "I just know", and someone else says "I
just know something different there is no way to resolve the conflict.  In a
DQ/SQ environment we can say "You are not looking at a metaphysical order"
and the reply to that is that I am a dummox or full of it, or it's
indefinable but I still know it since I am created knowing the indefinable,
like emotions.

As far as revealing the indefinable do you understand a DQ/SQ formulation of
metaphysics as a more complete explanation of emotions?  Or are emotions a
girlish manifestation?

Joe


On 6/6/11 3:21 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> Hey, Joe --
> 
> On 6/5/11 10:51 AM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> 
>> <snip>
>>> The novel 'in process' for each of us is our own life-experience.
>>> Only when it is completed can we determine our essential
>>> value-complement.  And that is metaphysically significant because
>>> it's what we "take with us" from this dimensional existence.
> 
> You responded:
>> This may be true in a SO metaphysics, but in a DQ/SQ
>> metaphysics there is something indefinable.
> 
> A number of things are unexplained or "indefinable" in the MOQ, chief among
> which are the cognizant Self and the primary Source.  That "something is
> indefinable" goes without saying, but doesn't provide much insight.
> 
> I would have expected a more definitive reply from you, Joe.  Since it
> wasn't forthcoming, I must assume either that you don't know or are
> unwilling to reveal what that undefined "something" is.
> 
> --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