Hey Ham, On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mark -- > > On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Mark "118" <[email protected]> wrote: [Mark in a previous incarnation] >> I wouldn't get too enamoured with something that Pythagora's is said >> to have said. Once you restrict yourself that way, you diminish your >> creativity. You will find, that our intellectual constructs actually >> do come from nothing. If not, where do they come from? Can you >> point to their origins? Can you state where it is that your sense of self >> comes from? > [Ham's clarification] > Actually I was wrong; it was Parmenides. But I do not see the principle > that 'nothing comes from nothing' and the primary source is 'not-other' as > "restrictive". On the contrary, these insights open the door of > understanding to concepts still regarded as unfathomable or illogical. That > they are not empirically verifiable is significant in itself, for if we had > direct access to metaphysical truth, we would not be free to choose our > convictions, such as the reality you are in the process of working out for > yourself.
[Mark] Yes, I agree, we do need some rules. However, if you saw Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, you would know that sometimes breaking the rules can get one ahead. If one breaks the rules too often, however, Los Federales will get you. > > I don't understand how can you say intellectual constructs come from > nothing. As cognitive creatures, we are all aware of what we experience and > that we ourselves are the 'knowers'. So, right from the start, intellection > and intuition are certainly not operating in a void. The very first > intellectual conclusion we make is that what we experience is "real", that > the things and persons we see around us are the physical objects of reality. > As we mature, some of us come to doubt this conclusion, and this leads to > speculative reasoning which can be insightful. Self-awareness, the "sense > of self", is one of the principles we tend to question. Eastern mystics and > pantheists, for example, believe the concept of selfness is an 'egoistic' > impediment to cosmic understanding. Essentialists, on the other hand, hold > to the view that the individuated self is the valuistic core of existential > reality, and that attempts to nullify it diminish the meaning and purpose of > the life-experience. [Mark] You haven't convinced me that they come from something. The way I see it, our personal sense of awareness, outside of what we are aware of as the workings of the brain, or the machinery of the body, is pretty close to nothing, maybe infinity minus 100. Egotism comes from the body, not from the self. Having to exist as a codependent entity in this reality, the human body develops a sense of propriety. The self does not have this. No, the Eastern mystics speak of atman, which is analogous to your valuistic core. They do speak of the illusory power of maya. This in modern terms could be considered the workings of the brain. Now the brain operates through chemical means. The brain is something apart from the valuistic core, it is physical in nature. How does one bridge the gap between the chemistry and the personal thoughts? However, the brain and body is the window through with we experience this reality. But it is just a window, not our valuistic core. I am not talking about nulifying the valuistic core, I am simply pointing at it, it is nothing (or nothingness if you will). > [Mark on a previous roll, trying to get the spare (7-10 split...)] >> You can create words for such a thing, but that is not the same thing. >> Don't get too caught up in words, they are trivial in the end as >> Augustine said, "like straw". Where does Essence "come from", oh, >> I forgot, it just "is". Well, I guess it is your one allowed exception, >> but everything else must "come from" something? My bad. > > I am only "caught up in words" to the extent that I need them to communicate > my concepts. And if you don't think the MoQ is caught up in words, you'd be > hard pressed to justify the endless debates going on here as to the meaning > of "static and dynamic", "quality patterns", "evolution", "free will", > "intellect", and "betterness". You scoff at the proposition that Essence > "just is"; yet you apparently accept the proposition that Quality "just is". > By what logic or natural law is an aesthetic property self-generating and > independent of conscious realization? Do you really think Quality exists in > the absence of man's relative sensibility and appreciation? Or is "Quality" > just another name for the divinity Mr. Pirsig refuses to sanction? [Mark] Yes, absolutely, MoQ is caught up on words. I find such a thing frustrating. If I don't use the right words, some say that I am saying the wrong thing. The only reason I brought up "just is", is because you chastised me for creating something from nothing. I agree that all propositions are not equal, but Parmenides does not rule. I do have an extreme respect for him non-the-less. We are just getting back to the way he saw things after about 2.5 thousand years, thanks in part to that demagogue Aristotle who hypnotized the West for a while. Yes, Quality does exist in the absence of Man. One could ascribe the notion of divinity, but it is not some man with a beard thinking about man. It is a divinity in the same way that Tao can be considered, or, as you say "Is-ness" (not to be confused with illness). However, bringing such a thing up does not help the MoQ cause since we are in the age of random meaninglessness. Why upset the apple cart, when it can be steered through crafty rhetoric. > > A good mind is a terrible thing to waste. [Mark] A good mind can be lots of fun, thanks for the interaction. > Speaking from Nothingness, Mark > > 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
