Hi Ham, If I may I will try to act as translator of different "workings of the mind". This is, of course, presumptive of me since I have no idea of how others think and can only interpret what is written. Joe is indeed obscure, and often self contradictory. This is the difficulty in presenting one's awareness in words.
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tues, May 24, 2011 5:02 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Ham and all, >> >> Try to envision an emotional level in which the individual is indefinable >> (no terms capture the reality of individuality since it is indefinable). >> Once that vision is secure Posit a definable 1. This is how I see >> evolution from an indefinable DQ emotional level to a definable SQ >> intellectual level. The emotional level DQ defines 1 and evolution >> carries this 1 to an SQ Intellectual level which creates mathematical >> logic. > > I can't envision an "emotional level", as it has no meaning for me. Emotions > are what we feel in response to experience. It may be joy, sadness, > frustration, anxiety, doubt, love, hate, or desire. Do we need a "level" > for each of these feelings? Is there a "pain level" and a "distress level", > as well as a feelings level? There is no logic for this euphemism, since > feelings are simply the state of individual awareness at a given time, just > as intellection is the process of thinking rationally. [Mark] We certainly do not "need" levels, in the same way we do not "need" and absolute source. In fact, creating too many levels (or levels at all) can result in boxing oneself in. One way out is to envision infinite levels which then makes the concept of levels meaningless. We could say that we speak from emotions. Certainly if we feel pain, our expression is different than if we feel joy. The problem may result when we try to separate or intellectualize emotions from the self. I would agree that the euphemism is unnecessary. > > You say individuality is indefinable. Why can it not be defined simply as > "the unit of awareness" whereby one identifies his knowing self? Indeed, > inasmuch as this is self-evident, why do we even need a definition? [Mark] Joe is defining individuality with the word indefinable. A better word would be ineffable. > > Your problem, Joe, is that you refuse to acknowledge "selfness"--the very > core of your existental reality. And, if you have no self, you can't be a > free agent, let alone lay claim to a life experience of your own. (Marsha > has somewhat the same problem). [Mark] Again, I do not think that Joe is expressing himself with the best choice of words. He seems to recognize selfness. When he states undefinable, he does not mean unrecognizable (imo). Marsha also recognizes selfness since she uses the word "I". Again, the term ineffable comes to mind. > > Furthermore, when you build your ontology on evolution (i.e., process in > time), you put the cart in front of the horse when it comes to the Source. > For if evolution "carries nature" from the lowest to the highest levels, > your Source comes at the end of this entire progression! How do you explain > a Creator coming onto the scene after all its creation is finished? How > logical is that scenario, Joe? [Mark] Joe is not clear in what he means by Evolution. I have also stated that one should not make Quality subordinate to Evolution. If Quality needs to follow certain rational rules, that is what one is doing. Quality presents itself (rationally) as evolution as one of many such rational possibilities. The creator and the creation are the same thing in my opinion. I have stated in the past that we ARE the Big Bang. Quality is both creator and creation. We are also creators and creations. > > Later, you added: "For me, evolution speaks to higher or lower values." > Evolution evidently "speaks to you" also, though at what particular level I > haven't the slightest idea. Until you realize that it is the individual who > determines what is of value, and to what degree or measure, you will never > appreciate the sensibility you've been granted as a human being. [Mark] Here I think that he uses "speaks to" not in a literal sense, but in a definitional sense. That is, evolution Has higher and lower levels. > > I can understand why metaphysical prepositions are sometimes regarded as > illogical. But I find it incredulous that an intelligent person such as > yourself can be persuaded that an "emotional level" defines unity. It makes > me wonder what you would make of epistemology. [Mark] Again I would suggest the concept of speaking from emotion. > > Thanks for a fascinating glimpse into the workings of your mind, > Ham [Mark] Yes, that is all we have from each other. Words on a page that open up a window into our respective souls. Some windows may be darker than others. We are not shallow waters, but infinitely deep. Cheers, 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
