[MD] words/time

[MarshaV]

Joe,


On Dec 31, 2012, at 3:35 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:

> Hi MarshaV,
> 
> To have a question you must have a questioner.  

Really?  Must?  'Must' is so dogmatic.  In what reality does such dogma exist?  Does such a dogmatic word exist in the conventional reality of analogy, metaphor and pattern?  Ever wonder about the evolution of the rules of grammar?  


> It is clearer when the answer follows a metaphysical format DQ/SQ
> rather than a mathematical equation!

Clearer?  A basic sentence structure might contain subject-verb-object.  Do yours? 

I like knowledge (answers, for example) to remain hypothetical (supposed but not necessarily real or true).    In spite of using conventional language, I thought Wheelers questions were quite interesting. 

>> ( http://quantumbuddhism.com/QB-ARTICLES/MIR-Myth.pdf )

But think what you like.

The metaphysics that I accept is that the world is nothing but Value which can be experienced as patterned (static) / unpatterned (Dynamic), in other words, the MoQ.   


Marsha



> 
> 
> On 12/31/12 2:08 AM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> John Wheeler speaking in April 2003 to the American Physical Society:
>> 
>> The Question is what is the Question?
>> Is it all a Magic Show?
>> Is Reality an Illusion?
>> What is the framework of the Machine?
>> Darwin's Puzzle: Natural Selection?
>> Where does Space-Time come from?
>> Is there any answer except that it comes from consciousness?
>> What is Out There?
>> T'is Ourselves? Or, is IT all just a Magic Show?
>> 
>> 
>> ( http://quantumbuddhism.com/QB-ARTICLES/MIR-Myth.pdf )
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 30, 2012, at 7:44 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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  
>>