Hello No harm in using that name.
*** To me, it seems, that you would like to define DQ as change and then saying that the direction in which the change, as a kind of vector, points, should be termed essence. This "attractor", termed "source", should then be absolute, in the sense of independent on anything. I, myself, presume such an independent existence of "that which is", but I think that which is, in an absolute sense, is mentally unreachable. But of course, well working concepts should somehow correspond to this. However, I wouldn't term DQ as change towards something, rather change from. Change from old concepts to new concepts (being this concepts descriptive, evaluative or both). And I don't mean that a change away from something leaves that thing obsolete. If all possible useful concepts form an infinite set, as I think it does, then it just doesn't matter how much you know, there would still be an infinity left. And if any arrow should point in an infinite-dimensional space (as I somehow believe both the space of concepts and the space of "what is" to be) you couldn't possible have an arrow pointing in any specific direction in every dimension. I think you could imagine an infinite-dimensional arrow somehow to be pointing "everywhere", if you should have one such arrow there. But then, this would be equivalent to having "change away from" as a value in itself, because the direction of such a change could be chosen arbitrarily and would the thus have some kind of correspondence with this infinite dimensional arrow. The only change that would be immoral, is in the direction towards what wouldn't work, but anyone heading in that direction would just punish himself by necessity. Among the Nag Hammadi-texts there is one which I like, called Allogenes the Stranger. There are a few lines which I like: "Even if he is endowed with blessedness and perfection and silence, He is not the blessed one, nor is he perfection or stillness. But he is something existing THAT ONE CANNOT KNOW AND IS AT REST. Rather they are completely unknowable aspects of him, While he is much superior in beauty than all good things. And in this way he is unknowable in every respect, And it is through them all that he is in them all. Not only is he unknowable knowledge that is proper to him, HE IS ALSO UNITED WITH THE IGNORANCE THAT SEES HIM Whether one sees in what way he is unknowable, or sees him as he is in every respect, or would say that he is something like knowledge, he has acted impiously against him, being liable to judgment because he did not know God. He will not be judged by that One, who is neither concerned for anything nor has any desire, BUT HE IS JUDGED BY HIMSELF BECAUSE HE HAS NOT FOUND THE TRULY EXISTING ORIGIN. He was blind apart from the quiescent source of revelation... ...Concerning all these matters, you have heard certainly. Do not seek anything more, but go. ... It is not appropriate to dissipate further through repeated seeking..." But of course you could use any definition that is useful, but I think every definition is a simplification. It always misses something. It can't include all and still be useful. So there can't be any final answer. Everything that is useful, you can use, but I don't think there is anything more. DQ to me, defined simply, would be "trying to find out what you don't know, you don't know". You can't have a goal-directed search then, because then you know what it is you don't know, or you're seeking for something which probably doesn't is (or exists). I have a little saying, in opposition to Jesus, which goes: "He who seeks won't find anything, but he who doesn't seek could possibly find anything". Concerning vision if you let an objects oscillate at about 60hz and with the right amplitude, the object would vanish from the vision from any humane being beholding it for some time. But what a person would see, where the object once were, would not be a void, or anything like that, but just the surroundings filling in. In the first book Pirsig used a metaphor which I liked. "To see in the corner of the eye". The cells at the end of the retina only fire when noting a change in the measured light. To you actually just see such sudden changes in the corner of your eye. In the center of vision you see a lot of details instad, but you must continually change the focus to really see patterns or changes. But if you think you know what you're looking for, you would always move the center of your vision there, and just miss these little changes which could possibly be noted in the corner. I think there was something similar in the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. It was called "somebody else's problem". It could only be seen if just happened to note it in the corner of your eye. It's a good metaphor anyway you put it. /A -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ham Priday Sent: den 26 oktober 2010 06:55 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] The Dynamics of Value Hi Alex -- > So guess that what you're really interested in is what in MoQ was > termed dynamic quality. I think you really shouldn't define that, > because by defining it, you propose to know what it is, and then it > wouldn't be dynamic or transcendental or whatever you may wish to call > it. I think that the ability to continuously reform yourself is the > only "pattern" of dynamic to be found. You just have to be open > minded. Yes, I am really interested in the primary source of reality, because if we don't take it into account we will never have a complete ontological thesis. However, I don't understand the premise you 've presented as an argument against definition. There is no logical reason that a concept like DQ or Essence cannot be defined. It may be indescribable, unknowable, or beyond empirical reach, but then so are God, Perfection, and absolute Goodness. Yet we have defined them, because we understand what such attributes ultimately must be. You say that "by defining it, it wouldn't be dynamic or transcendent." Why should a definition limit or affect the nature of that which transcends word meanings? Back in the 15th century, a mathematician and astronomer named Nicholas of Cusa theorized that God is the uncreated "Not-other". The significance of this theory is profound. It has afforded philosophers a valuable metaphysical tool - a definitive label for the ineffable Source whose attributive nature is otherwise indefinable. I have used Cusa's First Principle as the metaphysical foundation of Essentialism. Does Dynamic Quality accurately name the Source whose "dynamics" are unknowable and whose "quality" is realizable only to man? I think not. The term "dynamic" suggests a flow or movement like evolution, which applies to the physical world but not to a transcendent source. I happen to believe this uncreated source does not evolve or change, but is immutable. That's why I have named this metaphysically necessary source Absolute Essence. It's a non-descriptive appellation, yet one that is relevant and logically workable for an ontological scheme. Of course, I realize that it may not be appropriate in this forum to depart "too much" from the author's vernacular. At the same time, constantly throwing words like "dynamic", "static", and "patterns" around with impunity, without really knowing what they infer, tends to conflate ideas into meaningless "word games" that have little bearing on philosophical concepts. I really hope Mark can successfully apply his "logical constants" to metaphysical axioms so that we can avoid the misconceptions that careless word usage generates. Thanks for your inputs, Alex (may I address you by that name?). I am only acquainted with Huxley's 'Brave New World," but will investigate "Island", which, as you say, may present his idea of a more positive world. Essentially yours, 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/md/archives.html 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
