Howdy Ham, On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey there, Mark -- > > > 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. > > > 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. Mark: I would say that such things are interpreted by ME. I do not have the powers to express such things. 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. Mark: By all means, we imbue them with Meaning. The "them" is Quality. > > 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. Mark: I would say that this subject object thing is a red herring. The whole idea there is to put language in its place. > 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. Mark: A moral universe has the same meaning to me as an Essence determined universe. We are on a continuum of morality. It is up to us to determine what is more moral. That is one of the purposes of free will. As such we cannot create morality, only define it. > > 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. Mark: Well I would not say "ruin it", I would say severely limit it. Any fantasy begs definition, including one such as the double negation of Essence, if I may. > > Be my guest, Mark. The two questions I asked Dan were: > > 1. If, indeed, DQ is both indivisible and undefinable, as well as > unknowable, how can it be divided into definable patterns of > static quality? Mark: Such division is done by us sensible beings as you well know. These divisions and definitions are what creates sq, whether it be intellectual or otherwise. As such, these divisions are not complete since they are speculative. This would be similar with the division of the night sky into constellations. Such things are a product of the brain for our survival. We create these divisions. > > 2. How can our response to Dynamic Quality "lead to greater > knowledge" if it is unknowable? Dynamic Quality is a metaphysical tool to create greater knowledge. This knowledge does not exist outside of our heads. We therefore create such a thing. DQ provides a means to stretch the boundaries that we have saddled ourselves with. Essentialism is no different. You describe a remarkable metaphysics, but even you would say it was created and not found. > > As presented, Quality is mystical to me. It defies conventional > epistemology, > empirical verification, and causal logic. It is accepted on faith as the > true reality and equated with experience, despite our inability to know or > define it. And it is our guide to Betterness only when we follow it. What > can be mystical about that? Mark: Well we could get into what is mystical again. For me this life is a mystical experience, how else can I describe it. All these particles bound together and through some fantastic property I have my soul intertwined with them. What is that besides mystical. We accept on faith that all of this exists, there is no fundamental proof for such a thing. We say a tree exists since we create its image with our brains. All we see is the expression of the tree through our senses, we do not see the actual tree itself. When you speak of "our guide to Betterness", you are speaking MoQ. What exactly is our guide to Betterness. If you can answer that, you will be speaking my language. All the best, Mark-0-118, formerly known as WillBlake2 > > > 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
