Now calm down, Mark! --
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:
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.
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).
[Ham continues]:
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 her 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.
An opinion is neither true nor false. It is a subjective conclusion usually
made in the absence of objective evidence. "Beauty is in the eye of the
beholder," as the poet said. If I pronounce a woman "beautiful", it's a
judgment call I make on the basis of what is beautiful to me, relative to
what is not. If she looks in the mirror and opines that she is beautiful,
her opinion is based on the aesthetic scale as she judges it. As you say,
it is not a True/False decision.
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?
I don't consider valuistic appraisals "concepts". A concept is an
intellectualized scheme or paradigm for understanding/explaining how
something works in accordance with logic or known (i.e., universal)
principles. Most concepts are rational conclusions intellectualized from
experienced phenomena. An aesthetic judgment is an expression of our
proprietary psycho-emotional sensibility, no intellection or logic required.
[Ham]:
...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? ...
FYI, psycho-emotional sensibility determines our "emotional/intellectual
state" of mind at any given time.
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?
Hush! (You'll wake the neighbors.)
It's obvious that this point is an Achilles Heel for you, Joe; but if
goodness is "always there, without us", who is there to realize it?
Goodness (or Value) is what we as sensible beings feel in relation to
otherness. As I told Joseph, "... just as there cannot be objects without a
subject to experience them, we cannot value something without loving or
wanting it." What we feel, what we are sensible of, is rooted in the
Self/Other dichotomy. Essential value is our link to the Source. WE make
bring "goodness" into existence by measuring the value (of otherness)
differentially.
Therefore -- Now hear this! -- Value doesn't exist without a sensible agent.
It's the principle upon which our free choice is based.
Meditate upon it ... sleep on it ... you'll get it eventually, Mark.
Or I'm not essentially yours,
Ham
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
