[MD] The other side of Value

[Joseph Maurer]

On 6/8/11 8:25 PM, "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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

Hi Mark,

I do not know your take on evolution which seems to be a part of the MOQ.
To a mathematician I guess words are not numbers.  I wonder, are there
further levels in evolution beside mathematicians?

Joe
>> 
>> 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
>> 
> 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