Hi Joe, On 2/20/12, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mark and all, > > Metaphysics is a format. Physics follows the defined description of a > format. Meaning in DQ/SQ follows the format where one aspect of knowledge > is indefinable by individualization. In evolution 1 is not definable and > mathematical logic is inadequate.
The only reason you consider physics (mathematics) to be definable is that you have agreed that it is. It is otherwise not definable. So you are presenting the personal statement that physics is definable. Once could just as easily be of the opinion that it is not definable. That would be my opinion. As such I do not agree with your second statement. If by individualization you are pointing to the subjective view, then this would be your view of evolution. As such you are free to say whether it is definable or not. In my opinion, I would say that evolution is definable. It is in the dictionary. It is a concept that we make up, therefore it can be defined, since we can also make up definitions. Definitions are simply saying the same thing but in a different way. If we can say it in one way, we can say it in another. The number 1 is well defined in mathematics, so I am not sure what you mean there. We make the number 1 up so that we can create with it. If it was not defined, it would be difficult to build anything out of it, for that is how logic works. The number 1 has no place in evolution, since evolution is an explanation of plurality. This would be like using the number 1 to explain why a group of people have gotten together. Such use of 1 is not very useful, in my useless opinion. By the way, DQ is also useless, since it cannot be used, by definition. So we have "the useless"/"the useful" format for defining MoQ as well, maybe. What happens when one combines the indefinable with the definable? Well, then we get MoQ which is definable. The indefinable does not have much sway in the definable metaphysical world. What does that tell you? That such a world is not very real is what it tells me, in case you wanted to know. Are you an inquiring mind? > > In analogy and metaphor true terms exist and are knowable even though > indefinable. Agreement is necessary in discussing DQ/SQ since there is no > possibility for certainty when discussing an indefinable in a closed logic. > A better idea is usually around the corner like DQ/SQ. Doing one's best is > the condition of metaphysical logic as opposed to a computer's relational > mathematical logic in physics. An analogy is simply a picture of something else. This does not mean that the picture is knowable; it just means that we can think of something by thinking of the picture. Agreement is necessary in terms of what the words mean. We do not have to agree on the concepts, since those are in flux. MoQ is not finished, and it is certainly not certain. That I am certain of in an uncertain way. > > My interpretation of the metaphysics of quality DQ/SQ follows a paradigm. > Meaning lies in the format not an individual interpretation which must > remain DQ since there are no indefinable words. Meaning is not an agreement > between individuals but the acceptance of DQ/SQ metaphysics MOQ which in my > opinion must include evolution. OK, that is interesting. > > IMHO Meaning follows evolution. You disavow indefinable meaning in > communication, and put the burden of interpretation on the reader to > understand your use of words instead of appealing to the individualized > metaphysics of evolution that you are using. A hint to how you view the > knowledge of an indefinable reality would be useful. Evolution is not a thing, it is a process. Therefore, perhaps you mean that meaning follows an evolutionary process. This sounds right to me. Yes, we seem to confuse words with what the individual is saying. Words are not intention. If you mean knowledge as that which exists in the intellectual definable format, then that would not be possible. If you mean spiritual knowledge, then I view an indefinable reality with my eyes. I do not see anything out there that is ultimately definable. All I get are the things qualities. That is how I view it. It is a world of appearances, literally. Those appearances (or qualities) are based in Quality. That is why it is called Quality. Hope my view helps, Mark > > > On 2/20/12 9:06 AM, "118" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I will do my best to try to explain, but any meaning in my words must >> come from you who bring them alive when you read them. > > > 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
