Hi Alex, Yes, you will find a lot of SEPs in this forum. One of the contributors, John, is fond of Adams as am I.
I believe, and I am ready to be corrected, that the MOQ does provide direction. If we use the vector analogy, the components of such a vector would include "betterness". This gives direction but not destination. In terms of seeking, I prefer the term creating. If nothing else, we has humans are highly creative. It is this drive which keeps the development going. So, I would paraphrase you saying (with apologies) as follows: "He who [creates will create everything], but he who doesn't [create] could possibly [create] anything." Cheers, Mark On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Alexander Jarnroth < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 > 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
