Ham, Well if you must describe my ontology in your logical terms, I have no problem with that. Ah, yes the trappings of words which one quickly pounces on. If I thought you would understand poetry I would describe it that way so that you wouldn't be caught up in logic. Your projection of me as nothing more than you is the fundamental problem with your world view. I must think as you, how could I not? It's the only way to think. Your need to include me in your world view, suggests that you are perhaps a little concerned with the problems in your ontology. The logical absurdities that you mention are only such because you have defined the rules of logic. Anything outside of such rules must be absurd, by definition. Camus can wax eloquent on the absurd. Yes, if 2+2 = 4, and so on, then the square root of negative 2 is absurd by definition. I don't know why you can't understand my point there. It is not a mathematical anomaly, it lies outside the logic of math, yet relates directly back to it. If a logical absurdity has no value, the meaning of all paradoxes is lost on you. Don't be afraid to venture out a little, you may be surprise.
Ignorance creates the busyness in your head. As soon as you construct something to dispel the ignorance you must give it an attribute and compare it to something else, as though that gives it more meaning. You create a relativistic web of self supporting concepts which is only hanging from itself, all based on assumptions; this busyness feeds on itself. Something is not made more real by imagining its opposite. It is this ignorance that I would suggest you investigate. 1+1 will only get you so far, and it is a house of cards if you take it far enough down the rabbit hole, if I may mix things up. Valuism and an absolute source that transcends existence and eliminates the paradox of infinite regression. Yes of course that makes perfect logical sense. A source that goes beyond existence which would of course logically make part non-existent, unless you feel that there is something beyond those two. So explain to me this transcendence. What capability do you have of experiencing this source? Or is it by definition that which Value is? How does this ontology go beyond the cyclical logic that created it. Without feeding on your own philosophy, please explain what this would relate to in the real world, use a metaphor if you wish. I believe you may have something in your ontology, but it is taking some digging. Thanks for your patience. Willblake2 On Aug 26, 2009, at 1:45:22 AM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: From: "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [MD] Consciousness (explained?) Date: August 26, 2009 1:45:22 AM PDT To: [email protected] On Aug 23, 2009, at 12:56:39 AM, "markhsmit" <[email protected]" wrote: > Hi Ham, > > I experience the world in a non-dual manner, by neither of the above, > because that would be subjecting it to the duality of logical thought. > It is not a logical experience per se. Much in the same way that the > feeling of happiness has no logic to it. It is beyond the intellect, > which merely tries to enclose it, and sometime I feel, diminish it. > In terms of "meaning", this can be achieved non-intellectually in a > more true manner than otherwise. (OK, what is true, what is meaning, > I know the routine). I would posit that what you call intellectual > understanding is just an extension of what you term experiences. > You like your ontology because it feels right, not because it is logical. > What differentiates it from another ontology which may have much > more logic behind it? It is that it feels right to you. If you change > your mind, it is not because of additional logic, it is because it feels > better. You confirm the duality of existence when you say "I experience the world." Logic doesn't make the subject "I" and the object "world" two different essents. Your experience does. And experience only becomes intellectual when you draw conclusions from it. Yet, you claim to "experience the world in a non-dual manner" without the aid of logic or your intellect. Unless your conscious experience is seriously impaired, I can only conclude that your "experience" of non-duality is a fantasy of your imagination. Let's get real, Will. Your experience of the world is no more non-dual than mine is. You WANT reality to be a unity, just as Pirsig WANTS reality to be Quality, so you conceptualize it that way. And conceptualizing requires intellect. You can intellectualize a belief in anything. Theories and postulates abound, but empirical truth for human beings lies in experience. The truth is that the world is differentiated, and the primary contingencies are the conscious subject and its objective otherness. I plead no contest to your suggestion that I like my ontology because it "feels good", but then didn't Pirsig say that we know Quality for the same reason? In any case, that's no reason to reject the duality of existence -- especially if we postulate an absolute source that transcends existence and eliminates the paradox of infinite regression. > What drew me to MOQ, that is, that it was beyond intellectualizing, > could not be encapsulated. While this is difficult to understand by > someone > who requires logic and so called conceptualizing, there are logical paths > that can be followed to achieve a certain amount of Eureka. That is, > if one is willing to accept that such a thing exists to begin with. So now you concede that logic is required to (intellectually) conceptualize what is not possible to know empirically. And that is exactly how I arrived at my philosophy of Essence. But, as you say, my hypothesis will be of no value to those unwilling to accept that there is such an ultimate reality. You can forget about "the opposite of a chair" and mathematical anomalies, as they are only logical absurdities, whereas ontology is a philosophical quest. > I do like your estrangement from the source and Value sensibility > as a form of understanding the human condition. What does it do > for you besides providing you with a nice logical explanation? > Is there more to it than just the conceptualization? I would certainly like to think so. If you thought you had an answer to the riddle of the universe, wouldn't it be more than just a concept? > I ask this in all seriousness. Buddha brought to people a large source > of compassion which is rooted in, and directly results in, a glowing > feeling for all sentient beings. I see no reason why one cannot extend > this beyond just the sentient, since I feel, in the final analysis, that > our > so called mind is no different than the wind. But now I am starting to > ramble. I don't know about the "glowing feelings", but human compassion is a moral value that plays an important role in society. Need I remind you that Essentialism is a valuistic philosophy? Thanks for the response, Will. I hope I've put things in sharper focus for you. --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/
