Joe,
On Dec 31, 2012, at 3:35 PM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi MarshaV, > > To have a question you must have a questioner. Really? Must? 'Must' is so dogmatic. In what reality does such dogma exist? Does such a dogmatic word exist in the conventional reality of analogy, metaphor and pattern? Ever wonder about the evolution of the rules of grammar? > It is clearer when the answer follows a metaphysical format DQ/SQ > rather than a mathematical equation! Clearer? A basic sentence structure might contain subject-verb-object. Do yours? I like knowledge (answers, for example) to remain hypothetical (supposed but not necessarily real or true). In spite of using conventional language, I thought Wheelers questions were quite interesting. >> ( http://quantumbuddhism.com/QB-ARTICLES/MIR-Myth.pdf ) But think what you like. The metaphysics that I accept is that the world is nothing but Value which can be experienced as patterned (static) / unpatterned (Dynamic), in other words, the MoQ. Marsha > > > On 12/31/12 2:08 AM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> John Wheeler speaking in April 2003 to the American Physical Society: >> >> The Question is what is the Question? >> Is it all a Magic Show? >> Is Reality an Illusion? >> What is the framework of the Machine? >> Darwin's Puzzle: Natural Selection? >> Where does Space-Time come from? >> Is there any answer except that it comes from consciousness? >> What is Out There? >> T'is Ourselves? Or, is IT all just a Magic Show? >> >> >> ( http://quantumbuddhism.com/QB-ARTICLES/MIR-Myth.pdf ) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Dec 30, 2012, at 7:44 PM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi "MarshaV" and All, >>> >>> For many centuries SOM was accepted as metaphysical reality. When >>> questioning SOM, variety in existence is necessary. The existence of S, and >>> the existence of O. >>> >>> Logically two types of existence are described in S/O. But there is no >>> logical way to separate S & O varieties in existence beyond individuality so >>> names were used insect, animal, male, female etc., for modalities in >>> existence. >>> >>> In the MOQ DQ/SQ abandons the idea of S/O existence and returns to a one >>> size fits all status of existence using an indefinable/definable modality in >>> existence. The MOQ, how we know things, uses DQ/SQ as indefinable/definable >>> modalities in existence. A conscious knower-of-life modality discernment, >>> sentient/non-sentient life, are acceptable. >>> >>> Joe >> 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
