[MD] Metaphysics: what it is good for?

[MarshaV]

Joe,

The MoQ has the world nothing but Value.  What is this verification you want?  


Marsha





On Jan 21, 2013, at 2:55 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:

> Hi MarshaV and All
> 
> DQ/SQ! I accept this as a paradigm in communication for all reality in
> discourse.  
> 
> A question that logically arises: If DQ is indefinable common reality, to
> what can I appeal for verification of what I am talking about?  How do I
> communicate to another my experience of the indefinable?  What words could I
> possibly use?  I bypass words and make the appeal to the experience of
> self-consciousness to facilitate common understanding.
> 
> I have to appeal to the different experience of consciousness instead of
> definition when stating what I am putting into words is indefinable not
> unknowable. DQ is not beyond or outside of conscious experience in a
> sentient being.  Definable/indefinable metaphysics is tricky to explore.
> Words matter! IMHO!
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> On 1/19/13 6:08 PM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Joe,
>> 
>> Beyond admitting to having a humble opinion, I have no idea what you are
>> talking about. 
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 19, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi MarshaV and All,
>>> 
>>> IMHO In the DQ/SQ metaphysics DQ is experienced as indefinable.  Indefinable
>>> DQ is differentiated from SQ by definition.  All experience is included in
>>> an indefinable-definable format DQ/SQ from an emotional or intellectual
>>> perspective.   
>>> 
>>> Can my experience of consciousness feel secure in the recognition of an
>>> indefinable DQ definable SQ format for all of reality?
>>> 
>>> I recognize levels in DQ/SQ reality in a process called evolution.  Should I
>>> look beyond determined levels in existence for reality?   Is 'evolution' as
>>> levels in existence acceptable in metaphysics?  I want to avoid the word
>>> "essence" as I comprehend its meaning when it is indefinable DQ only by
>>> analogy.  I prefer "existence" as the format of DQ/SQ.  It doesn't balk at
>>> an indefinable/definable explanation.
>>> 
>>> In MOQ, the experience of existence follows the indefinable/definable format
>>> as the metaphysics of indefinable DQ, definable SQ reality.
>>> 
>>> Joe
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 1/18/13 6:15 PM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Joe,
>>>> 
>>>> Since there is no clear question within your post that I could be accused of
>>>> evading, I will remind you that it is all analogy.  If you don't like the
>>>> analogy that I present at any given moment, ignore it or find your own;
>>>> 
>>>> Better yet "Find out for yourself."
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Ma
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 18, 2013, at 5:09 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi MarshaV and All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> IMHO Indeterminate (DQ) does not need a special function in accepting the
>>>>> indefinable to validate it.  Consciousness, in the awake sentient being,
>>>>> upholds logic, DQ/SQ reality.  DQ/SQ metaphysics in consciousness is
>>>>> adequate, discerning indeterminate (indefinable) DQ and determined
>>>>> (definable) SQ.  To request a special logic for every event lowers
>>>>> metaphysical discipline to a He said/She said format.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Joe
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 1/18/13 3:33 AM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Seems to me perception is what is often being labeled 'immediate' but that
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> not the indeterminate (DQ).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>