[MD] A problem with the MOQ.

[Joseph Maurer]

Hi Ham and all,

In my opinion "essence" is a bogus word.  It combines two parts of speech,
to be (esse) and being (ens) in one conception thereby becoming twisted and
outside reality.  Metaphysically two are not one.  Whenever I see the word
"essence" I translate it to "existence" dq/sq and I feel more secure in
logic.  DQ/SQ existence and DQ/SQ value in DQ/SQ evolution.

A logic of evolution accepts DQ/SQ existence.

Value attaches to a hierarchy in existing reality.  In the metaphysical
description of evolution DQ/SQ, value must exist in the hierarchy in
existence.  Evolution describes the value in existence, reality.  Definition
follows value in evolution.  DQ is a proper value in metaphysics.  I
question how definition is proper to the conception of evolution which
creates value for levels in existence.

Joe     

On 4/20/12 12:43 AM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> I believe positing Value as the essence of man's reality has
> contributed most significantly to contemporary western philosophy.
> 
> The tenet that Value is fundamental to existence, however, as DMB points
> out, must be understood conceptually if it is to be accepted as a
> metaphysical principle.  And the fact that the author avoided defining DQ,
> which is his name for Value, places it in limbo insofar as metaphysics is
> concerned.  We are left without an explanation of its ontological source or
> its epistemological relation to mankind.