Hi Ham and all, As I read your post impulses comes to the fore. I agree you can't envision an "emotional level" since there is no meaning in being a happy person since it demands a response to indefinable Joy. Do you feel your mother was inferior to you or just has no meaning in a universe?
Joe On 5/24/11 9:25 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tues, May 24, 2011 5:02 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Ham and all, >> >> Try to envision an emotional level in which the individual is indefinable >> (no terms capture the reality of individuality since it is indefinable). >> Once that vision is secure Posit a definable 1. This is how I see >> evolution from an indefinable DQ emotional level to a definable SQ >> intellectual level. The emotional level DQ defines 1 and evolution >> carries this 1 to an SQ Intellectual level which creates mathematical >> logic. > > I can't envision an "emotional level", as it has no meaning for me. > Emotions are what we feel in response to experience. It may be joy, > sadness, frustration, anxiety, doubt, love, hate, or desire. Do we need a > "level" for each of these feelings? Is there a "pain level" and a "distress > level", as well as a feelings level? There is no logic for this euphemism, > since feelings are simply the state of individual awareness at a given time, > just as intellection is the process of thinking rationally. > > You say individuality is indefinable. Why can it not be defined simply as > "the unit of awareness" whereby one identifies his knowing self? Indeed, > inasmuch as this is self-evident, why do we even need a definition? > > Your problem, Joe, is that you refuse to acknowledge "selfness"--the very > core of your existental reality. And, if you have no self, you can't be a > free agent, let alone lay claim to a life experience of your own. (Marsha > has somewhat the same problem). > > Furthermore, when you build your ontology on evolution (i.e., process in > time), you put the cart in front of the horse when it comes to the Source. > For if evolution "carries nature" from the lowest to the highest levels, > your Source comes at the end of this entire progression! How do you explain > a Creator coming onto the scene after all its creation is finished? How > logical is that scenario, Joe? > > Later, you added: "For me, evolution speaks to higher or lower values." > Evolution evidently "speaks to you" also, though at what particular level I > haven't the slightest idea. Until you realize that it is the individual who > determines what is of value, and to what degree or measure, you will never > appreciate the sensibility you've been granted as a human being. > > I can understand why metaphysical prepositions are sometimes regarded as > illogical. But I find it incredulous that an intelligent person such as > yourself can be persuaded that an "emotional level" defines unity. It makes > me wonder what you would make of epistemology. > > Thanks for a fascinating glimpse into the workings of your mind, > Ham > > 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
