Greetings Ham,
On Aug 15, 2011, at 12:04 AM, Ham Priday wrote: > > Hey there, Mark -- > > >> Dearest Ham, >> >> Much as I like to try to figure out what Joe is saying, you >> are being misled. His problem is easily addressed. He can >> know the indefinable by not defining it. And I am not being >> facetious with that. Think about it. Do you know Beauty >> or do you have to define it first? > > I experience Beauty, goodness and morality in my sense of relative Value. > This sensibility is first converted to the finite aspects of my phenomenal > world through my experience, and then interpreted intellectually (i.e., > defined) as my knowledge of the world. I don't start out as Joe did, > however, with the premise that Value is "indivisible", "indefinable" and > "unknowable". If that were true, I would not be capable of dividing it into > defined patterns from which my knowledge is derived. > >> Mark: >> Yes exactly. If DQ is all of those things, then what are we doing >> writing about it. It is like writing about a phantom of a phantom. >> DQ is not divided into sq, it expresses sq. There is a big difference >> there. The Sun expresses sunlight, it is not divided into bits of >> sunlight. > > Sq, or definable patterns of DQ, are expressed by ME. Sunlight is the energy > of the Sun, which is one of the patterns we actualize from essential Value. > I think our mistake is in presuming that the patterns and their relational > values are a "given", and that the onus is on something called "Quality" to > give them meaning. Rather, the meaning of reality is what we realize in > differentiating its Value. > > The point I was trying to make with Dan is that the MoQ, by rejecting > subjects and objects, eliminates the sensible agent as the measure of Value. > Goodness (and Evil, too, I suppose) are thus predetermined aspects of Quality > metered out to creatures by a moral universe progessing toward a state of > "betterness". It "wonders me" (as the Dutch say) that we can even be > discussing moral responsibiity when there is no accountable moral agent. > >> No doubt messy. This is the beauty of the internet. However, is it >> possible that from Chaos comes Order? Where is our fearless >> leader when we need him. Is he hiding out somewhere, or is he >> one (or more) of the avatars herein simply trolling for another book? >> Flotsam and Jetsam, all of it, I say! > > As Marsha would put it: it's all analogy and reified conventionalism. In > other words, why ruin the fantasy by struggling to define it? This may not > accurately express RMP's metaphysics, but it certainly reflects his poetic > spirit IMO. This seems unfair, far too cut and dry. I see it more like giving up hard objects and selfish motives for shimmering patterns; trading the giving, taking and accumulating for participating and dancing. The definitions still matter but they are not declarations as much as warp and weave. While some would exploit the word 'illusion' it is 'useful illusion', and I am happy to stress 'useful' as good when good is the intent rather than ownership. 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
