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 <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >>> >>> >>> 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
