[MD] The other side of Value

[118]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> You are posting on a site that accepts a DQ/SQ formulation for reality.
> It's alright to say that the MOQ is nonsensical, to provoke a further
> discussion of QUALITY, but your metaphysics seems to be based on
> mathematical logic, which places the value of Love on a balance scale.  You
> are hamstrung by mathematics in describing reality as its logic does not
> admit evolution, but only a lack of order in describing different
> individuals.
>
> Joe

Hi Joe,
I have not said that MoQ is nonsensical.  In fact it makes a lot of sense to me.

If I use Ham's presentation of love as attraction, there is no
balance.  I am also far from mathematical logic, you have me confused
for Ron there.

You yourself have stated that evolution is the presentation of levels.
 That sounds like a logical argument to me.  You seem to be the one
admitting evolution through logic.  Never have you stated before that
evolution describes individuals, only that it presents levels.  I am
curious, how does this work?  Are some individuals higher in evolution
than others?  Are they on a different level?  If so, this is a new
argument from you and I will have to think about it.

Just be clear, I do not think that MoQ is nonsensical.  Your
presentation of it does not make much sense to me, however.

Cheers,
Mark
>
> On 6/6/11 4:28 PM, "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Joe,
>> To define something as undefinable is a bit nonsensical.  Perhaps you mean to
>> use the word "ineffable".
>>
>> Just asking.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:15 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> At least, that's my belief.
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>> This may be true in a SO metaphysics, but in a DQ/SQ metaphysics there is
>>> something indefinable.
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>> 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
>
>
> 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
>