[MD] words/time

[Joseph Maurer]

Hi "MarshaV" and All,

For many centuries SOM was accepted as metaphysical reality.  When
questioning SOM, variety in existence is necessary.  The existence of S, and
the existence of O.

Logically two types of existence are described in S/O.  But there is no
logical way to separate S & O varieties in existence beyond individuality so
names were used insect, animal, male, female etc., for modalities in
existence.

In the MOQ DQ/SQ abandons the idea of S/O existence and returns to a one
size fits all status of existence using an indefinable/definable modality in
existence.  The MOQ, how we know things, uses DQ/SQ as indefinable/definable
modalities in existence.  A conscious knower-of-life modality discernment,
sentient/non-sentient life, are acceptable.

Joe  


On 12/30/12 1:05 AM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> Greetings Joe,
> 
> 
> On Dec 29, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> Hi MarshaV and All,
>> 
>> For a philosophy to reflect about its own nature seems like trying to lift
>> myself by my own bootstraps.
> 
> 'Ahh, do it anyway. It's interesting [to try].'
> 
> 
>> To avoid individuality Pirsig, imho, logically
>> posited reality as DQ/SQ, indefinable/definable reality.
> 
> Right.
> 
> 
>> How can I know DQ?
> 
> Do you mean 'How can you experience DQ?'  One way to approach the Ultimate
> (DQ) is by discovering that your certainties are false, or so some have
> suggested.  
> 
> Oh, the question was rhetorical!
> 
> 
>> Metaphysics DQ/SQ, Definable/indefinable.  Consciousness
>> embraces indefinable reality DQ/SQ analogy/metaphor beyond the purview of SQ
>> only logical definitive discourse.  I find no contradiction in that
>> statement only the evolution of metaphysics beyond mathematical physics.
> 
> The Question is what is the Question?
> 
>  
> Marsha 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Joe
>> 
>> 
>> On 12/27/12 11:37 PM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> "In sum, if philosophy is reflective about its own nature, what is it to
>>> make
>>> of the fact that philosophical thinking cannot be carried on by the unaided
>>> human mind but only by the human mind that has familiarized itself with and
>>> deeply interiorized the technology of writing?  What does this precisely
>>> intellectual need for technology have to say about the relationship of
>>> consciousness to the external universe? ..."
>>> 
>>>        (Ong, Walter J., 'Orality and Literacy', pp. 169-170)
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 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