[MD] Metaphysics: what it is good for?

[MarshaV]

Hi Joe,

The words I find interesting form the question:  What's underneath?  For instance, what is underneath any (you pick one) intellectual pattern.  That question doesn't imply I must toss anything away, though often it does change the status of such a bundle.  -  Yes, words matter, but experience matters more.  Static patterns of value are not things that hold still for analysis, but projections of things: ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and impermanent.    

This is not tricky.  It is impossible!   

And don't ask me, for I don't know anything.  
 
 
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
>>> 
>>> 
>>>