Hi Marsha and Ron --
Marsha:
The 'unknowable, undefinable undividable Goodness' that I spoke of is outside of the language's ability to explain it, because language seeks to divide, describe and define. With language the subject and object are created. I suggest you might say there seem to be two types of goodness/ betterness. There is the static, measurable, judgmental type which is associated with a subject (ego/individual), and there is an ineffable Goodness(interconnectedness/nonduality). Ron: Marsha, I think that is the best way to put it. That was an excellent explanation. Well done for what it's worth.
Wouldn't you then say that the "judgmental type" of goodness is the only goodness we can know? And how would you say we know it?
I would say that goodness is what makes us feel good, whether it's the experience of a summer breeze, the sound of music, a woman's beauty, a bonus awarded for extra effort, the just punishment of a criminal, or finding the solution to a dilemma. I would further say that goodness is not intrinsic to any of these events, but that it is the word we use to describe our emotional response to the experience. In other words, goodness is "judgmental" precisely because we decide what is good in relation to other experiences that make us feel "less than good", or bad.
As for "ineffable Goodness" with which we have no direct experience, isn't this a conception or belief that the individual takes delight in without evidence of its truth? Since concepts and beliefs do not exist by themselves, but only in the mind of individuals, I don't see why you classify "interconnectedness" and "nonduality" as non-egoistic goodness.
By the way, everything you have stated about goodness also applies to Value (Quality). Unrealized goodness or value doesn't exist -- even if we believe, or are persuaded, that it has a metaphysical source. If you haven't already guessed, the point I am trying to make is that Goodness, Value, and Betterness all relate to the emotional/intellectual state of the individual subject. Which suggests that in the absence of subjective sensibility (realization) goodness is meaningless.
Finally, I would submit that this conclusion has everything to do with the way we know and feel (epistemology) and nothing to do with the divisiveness of language or verbal definitions (semiotics).
How much of this will you allow me, Marsha and Ron? Or, are you both in total disagreement?
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/md/archives.html
