Mark and Joe [mentioned] --
[Joe]:
I cannot define myself, and I know I exist. Not everything I know
is definable. Movement does not rely on a definition for existence.
The act of a being that can with the emphasis on can. Movement
depends on what you are looking at.
[Ham]:
I disagree that "not everything [you] know is definable". Empirical
knowledge is by definition definable. If existence is the relational
system in which objects are perceived to evolve in time and space,
does this not define movement and change? Doesn't the subjective
awareness that apprehends your being-in-the-world define "your self"?
What you don't know can be defined as that about which you are
ignorant or not informed.
[Mark]:
Definitions put the context of something into a relational context.
Things are defined by words, which in turn are used to define that
which they are defining. So definitions only go so far. The content
of knowing in this sense is only relational. I know something because
I can relate it to something else.
Knowledge is more than relational. We know the parameters of things (size,
weight, texture and composition), their form (animal, vegetable, mineral,
liquid or gas), their history (creation, dynamics or processes), as well as
any aspect of their being that is useful to us. All of this knowledge is
definitive, whether measured, observed, or expressed in words.
In my opinion, "knowing" is beyond the intellect (definition: a
mechanistic
method for relationships). Such knowing happens through something
deeper. If we feel we know something, what we are saying is that the
words, actions, and logic make us feel content. When one changes his
mind, it is not because of logic, but because it feels better.
Illumination
happens when the glow of emotional attachment grows stronger. So,
while it may be possible to "define" things in relation to other things,
such definition may appear to be inadequate to a third party.
The "glow of emotional attachment" is, indeed, "deeper than knowing." This
represents the the esthetic value of objects and events to the observer. It
affords us pleasure and contentment because it objectivizes our individual
value-sensibility. The experience of such qualitative value is proprietary
to the self, so it doesn't require definition in "universal" terms.
Knowing through definitions is quite different from Knowing. One can
know beauty, but not be able to define it. In fact, I would go so far as
to say that greater than 90% of what we Know, we cannot define.
I have no major problem with your analysis, Mark. When Joe said "not
everything known is definable," I took it to mean that part of our
experience--he mentioned "movement" as an example--is unknowable, and that I
deny. I didn't understand what he meant by "movement depends on what you
are looking at." (Possibly he was referring to the observer's perspective
relative to the object, such as when sitting in a railroad car and seeing
things pass by the window.) I'll admit that the point of his diatribe was
incomprehensible to me, and have asked him to clarify it.
I also think you are using "definiton" in a strictly "dictionary" sense.
Thus, while it may be difficult to define the valuistic experience of love,
desire, or beauty in textbook words, we know what we are experiencing. And
that is the point I was trying to make.
Best regards,
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/
