Greetings Ham, On Apr 27, 2011, at 12:39 AM, Ham Priday 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? Marsha: If you mean by know 'conceptually know,' than you may be correct. This type of knowing is the recognition of established patterns. > 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. Marsha: Man iss the measure of all things. > Ham: > 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. Marsha: There is direct experience with the "ineffable Goodness." I classify the "ineffable Goodness" as "interconnectedness" and "nonduality" because these terms represent a state of indivisibility, without reification of I and object. > Ham: > 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. Marsha: Unrealized goodness may not "exist," but it can be experienced. The metaphysical source/definition is not the experience. > Ham: > 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. Marsha: Here you are addressing the 'static, measurable, judgmental type' of goodness that IS dependent on a subject, and built on a provisional understanding. These things and a subject exist, but DO NOT inherently, independently exist. They exist as applied patterns. > Ham: > 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). Marsha: The way we provisionally know and interpret feelings has everything to do with the language used to define experience. Your questions are always a challenge. Many thanks... Marsha ___ 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
