Hey Ham, Just came to this one. Musta come in while I was doodling away. Just thought I would be obnoxious and jump right in. See if I can rattle your cage a bit.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > [Ham] > 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? [Mark unceremoniously butting in] No, I wouldn't say that, but I guess you already know that. > [Ham] > 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. [Mark] Feeling good is ephemeral and eventually turns into feeling bad (what a drag huh?), although it takes a woman's beauty a while for that to happen (maybe I am a lesbian). Yes, good must be used in relation to other things. This is one way to describe Quality as Relationalism (I posted on that a while back), and not the Wiki variety. I could go on the say that it is what lies between and separates, but that would only be to annoy you (heh, heh). > > 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. [Mark] Ineffable only means undefinable, Like "I got that Ineffable FEELING..., everything's going my way". OK, Ham. Let's take a beautiful woman (I really must be a lesbian). Now, we have your opinion on her, and we have here opinion on herself. Which one is the Best (or Betterest) one? You know that it is her own opinion. So, if she is beautiful in her mind, is that not true? Is what you believe True or False? Sorry, this is a T/F test. Where do you think we GET concepts from, by the way? We can't make them up, pull them out of a vacuum, pluck them from the stars, or pull them out of a hat. We can only translate into Humaneze what is already there. We cannot create something out of nothing, remember? > > 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. [Mark] Well, I am glad that I am not lying on a couch telling you my problems. Emotional/Intellectual state, now what exactly is that mouthful? Oh, in case you forgot, Goodness is not meaningless without us, it is always there. It will still be around when we are gone, dead, late, departed, lifeless, defunct, extinct, no more, six feet under, pushing up daisies, seven steps to Heaven, bone house, sleep city, zombie zone, Hotel Morrison, Elisian Fields, Endsville. AM I CLEAR? > > 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). [Mark] Not smart enough to comment on that one, I am sure you are relieved. > > How much of this will you allow me, Marsha and Ron? Or, are you both in > total disagreement? [Mark] Match-maker Match-maker make me a match. Just tell them it is all emotioellect. > Annoyingly yours, 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
