On Monday 17 November 2008 9:19 PM Ham writes to Joe: [Ham]
I accept that fact that much, if not most, of reality is undefined, and that what is undefined (or "ineffable") is often a topic of metaphysical theory, mysticism, metaphor, and poetic prose. However, I don't accept "statements" that are not predicated on plausible concepts, such as a coherent ontology with some logic to support it. In other words, for someone to say, "There's a lot we don't know about reality, so let's call it Dynamic Quality and interpret the world as its static patterns," I don't give much credence to that as a metaphysical theory. Hi Ham, [Joe] IMO There are two ways to speak of the ³undefined²: 1. I don¹t know what you are talking about, you haven¹t defined your terms. 2. It is impossible to define DQ: Defined words are SQ. SOM makes a distinction between Mind and Matter, and calls it S/O. For Pirsig that was incorrect, there is no such distinction. DQ is a law of order in existence, giving credence to evolution. For Mechanical actions e.g. those generated by habitual mindsets a division of everything into Conscious/Mechanical is a good analogy for DQ/SQ. [Ham] "Beingness" is a word I use categorically to connote experiential (objective) existence. [Joe] I am suspect about the term ³(objective)² representing the totality of experiential existence. You are assuming a metaphysics and arguing for its veracity. You deny experiential existence to the (subjective) by declaring it is outside of ³being ness². The (subjective) undefined is not outside ³being ness² as analogy and metaphor show. [Ham] It represents the "being" contingent of "being-aware". Everything we define and describe in the objective world has to do with being, whether it's our physical body, the changing seasons, or the history of mankind.. [Joe] The above description is also true of the subjective. Being asleep, or being awake is another matter. I am a sleep-walker, rarely am I aware of why I do something. In my habits I am asleep. [Ham] Sometimes, I think, we stress words too much in our analysis of existence. Definitions are helpful when we're talking about experienced entities or observed principles of nature. But we can't define "unknowns" like essence, pure quality, primary source, transcendence, and 'oneness'. When we try to do so, words get in the way of the concept, and our explanation is lost on the reader. [Joe] Truth does not depend on the abilities of the reader to understand. Metaphysics is not as exciting as mathematics. To say it is more difficult to talk about indefinably experienced entities like my behavior, as opposed to electrons speeding around a nucleus at the speed of light is debatable. [Ham] Now, while self-awareness is one of those indefinable concepts, there is no NEED to define it. We all sense that it is the locus of our experience, the subjective "I"', the knowing self. There is nothing mystical about being aware; it's what we ARE. Likewise, there's nothing mysterious about Value; it's what we DESIRE. No verbal definition can bring us closer to understanding what is self-evident. Words are useful only in describing what is "other" to us, (i.e., the objective world). Because Being is what we are "descriptively" aware of in terms of attributes, relations, and dynamics, that is why we can define it.. [Joe] I appreciate your candor. I am reluctant to place self-awareness outside of metaphysics. That is why I find the analogy Conscious/mechanical a good analogy for my behavior to throw further light on DQ/SQ. Anyway, that's how I see it. Thanks, Joe. --Ham Likewise! Thanks, Ham Joe On 11/17/08 9:19 PM, "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Joe -- > > >> I understand you do not accept the statement of undefined/defined, >> DQ/SQ reality. Yet the most inner you is undefined to me, and you >> would never be able to put it into words. "Mystical" is a word >> pointing to a need of analogy for understanding like "good". >> I know there is an inner "You" as a social being. >> >> I won¹t quibble about the word "mystical". I assume you will >> accept "analogy or metaphor" to describe an "intellectual construct >> of beingness from value" since beingness is not a usual word. > > I accept that fact that much, if not most, of reality is undefined, and that > what is undefined (or "ineffable") is often a topic of metaphysical theory, > mysticism, metaphor, and poetic prose. However, I don't accept "statements" > that are not predicated on plausible concepts, such as a coherent ontology > with some logic to support it. In other words, for someone to say, "There's > a lot we don't know about reality, so let's call it Dynamic Quality and > interpret the world as its static patterns," I don't give much credence to > that as a metaphysical theory. > > "Beingness" is a word I use categorically to connote experiential > (objective) existence. It represents the "being" contingent of > "being-aware". Everything we define and describe in the objective world has > to do with being, whether it's our physical body, the changing seasons, or > the history of mankind.. > > Sometimes, I think, we stress words too much in our analysis of existence. > Definitions are helpful when we're talking about experienced entities or > observed principles of nature. But we can't define "unknowns" like essence, > pure quality, primary source, transcendence, and 'oneness'. When we try to > do so, words get in the way of the concept, and our explanation is lost on > the reader. > > Now, while self-awareness is one of those indefinable concepts, there is no > NEED to define it. We all sense that it is the locus of our experience, the > subjective "I"', the knowing self. There is nothing mystical about being > aware; it's what we ARE. Likewise, there's nothing mysterious about Value; > it's what we DESIRE. No verbal definition can bring us closer to > understanding what is self-evident. Words are useful only in describing > what is "other" to us, (i.e., the objective world). Because Being is what > we are "descriptively" aware of in terms of attributes, relations, and > dynamics, that is why we can define it.. > > Anyway, that's how I see it. > > Thanks, Joe. > --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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
