On 3/24/10 8:33 PM, "John Carl" <[email protected]> wrote:
hey Joe, I don't dabble in these dark waters much, but ever once in a while a fishie catches my eye and I dive after it. On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: Joe >> Hi Andre and all, >> I agree you don¹t get much clarity about ³essence² when you look at it all by itself. However, Œindividuality¹ strikes a note for ³essence² as a level in existence. John > I wonder at "level" but there is something in what you say. I'd term it, "individuality strikes a note for essence in experience", but that's a minor word quibble. > I'm leaning for the fundament of the threesome, essence, individual and value, these days. Just because it seems like a good idea. But I haven't thought it all out yet. > > But I appreciate your phrasing, "strikes a note for". rings true to me. > > All the rest, sad to say, is lost to me. I don't see what you could possibly mean by reified "individuality" participating in anything. > > Did you perhaps mean rather, "individuation"? That might make sense. But please, Never mind. I don't think the deep end of the murky seas are for me. John in the shallows Joe > When I was pondering evolution I accepted a hierarchy of levels in existence. ³Individuality² participates in all those levels. Indeed, ³individuality² trumps DQ in every case where evolution proposes a different individual level in existence. > John > Where evolution proposes individuation, Valuation proposes a judgement. Without a thumbs up from valuation, the individual fades. I don't see this as individuality trumping DQ. Just the opposite. Joe Evolution proposes individuation in the definition of an individual within a level of existence. 1 has to be defined before the logic of mathematics SQ can function. Imho individuation comes before 1 and before DQ Joe previously: >> The individual exists. DQ exists in the individual. I was flabbergasted at the dependent role that DQ plays to ³individuality². There is no way of knowing DQ apart from the ³individual². John > Well all this doesn't seem too flabbergasting to me. More like, "duh". But that's probably because of the murky waters problem of not even understanding what you're saying much of the time. > > As far as DQ's dependency on individuality, it's a mutual thing, not a hierarchical, but absolutely I agree that its a co-dependent relationship, and without the individual to embody values, there would be no values to see. Joe I don’t know how to ask a question, John, about “individuation” coming before DQ? Is there an analogy between the logic of a defined 1 establishing the logic for 2,3,4,etc. and undefined DQ establishing a logic for evolution, SOL? If I say yes then what is prior to DQ? I am at a loss for words so I say ‘individuality’ necessary to DQ. Individuality and DQ become separated. > Joe previously >> I don¹t expect this is a surprising development, but it sure was a surprise to me. >> > John > And there's the real treasure in life, Joe. Surprise! Or as somebody famous once said, "the most important thing you will ever make is a realization." > > Take care, > > John > John > 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 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
