Hi Ham, On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mark -- > > On Tues. 12/13/11 at 1:32 PM, Mark "118" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Hi Ham, >> As always, we differ slightly in our philosophies, and I do not want >> to belabor that difference. I present some reply below simply as my >> opinion on the subject. >> >> I appreciate your well thought out replies, and they force me to find >> better ways to express my philosophy which in turn takes me to new >> levels. For this I thank you. >> > [Concerning Ham's objection to the double-negative applied to attitudes]: >> >> Quite honestly I do not see much difference. Your double negation >> seems to me to be no different from our "pulling out" from essence >> that which delivers value. Excluding an exclusion (double negate) >> takes us right back to "realizing" value from the all inclusive >> Essence of potentiality. In common parlance this is called >> "Creation". >> >> If a politician is an anti-anti-conservative it means he does not >> associate himself with the anti-conservative movement. It does not >> necessarily mean that he is a moderate. It just means that he is >> against the stand of the anti-conservatives. If one is opposed to >> opposition, it means that he does not believe that opposition is the >> correct way to deal with things. Of course this is illogical semantic >> nonsense, like "understanding our understanding". ... >> > [On Ham's concept of individual control in our world]: >> >> I prefer the term adaptation, since it provides a more realistic >> picture in my view. I can ask you, do we have control of our destiny? >> If so, how? Do we have control over how our brain works? If so, >> what part of the brain controls the rest of the brain? If our brain >> is in control, then what controls it? I am not pointing to a world we >> can only experience like a movie, I am questioning your sense of >> control. From where does this control emanate? If it is spiritual, >> where is the connection between the spiritual and the material? >> That is, how does the spiritual become material? > > > Who or what controls our destiny if not the individual himself? Of course > you can say that luck and genetic endowment play a part, but in principle > our behavior is not programmed by physical laws or the will of gods; rather, > it exercises the intention of our subjective self, which in turn reflects > our proprietary value-sensibility.
Ham, the questions were not meant to be rhetorical, for I am really interested in your opinion. The connections between the spiritual and physical is something that intrigues me. I was trying to present the sense of adaptation as opposed to control, to place us within a larger framework from which our control is not the all pervasive sense of control. You also speak to this when you state that we must operate under certain rules. So, I will answer my own question. Yes, we control our destiny, but it is not through controlling our thoughts. It is by expressing an attitude to our thoughts since our thoughts come and go like our breathing. So, we are provided a body like a car (or temple if you wish), and we can either have fun in it, or go for a dreary ride. The question is: how is it that this control works? > >> [Mark previously questioning the term relative as it pertains to >> relativism of existence] >> >> OK, I was caught up in Relativism. I did a google search on relative >> and copied the first hit that came up and pasted the first three >> definitions: >> >> rel·a·tive, adj. >> 1. Having pertinence or relevance; connected or related. >> 2. Considered in comparison with something else: the relative quiet of >> the suburbs. >> 3. Dependent on or interconnected with something else; not absolute. >> >> I was using the second definition, which is what I believe Relativism >> uses, that is, your existence is compared to somebody elses existence. > > > We don't need to parse definitions to affirm the relativity of existence, > Mark. Every thing in the universe is related to every other thing in some > way. And we exist relative to the existence of other people and their > experiences. It is this relationship that accounts for our knowledge of > reality as a co-relational system of subjects, objects and events. That's > what makes finitude "universal". Ham, this concept of relatedness is one way to look at things, and your stating its Truth does not make it so. We do not exist relative to other people, that is just a social network which one can take or leave. It is not Fundamental to our existence. We can have knowledge which is outside of co-relational subjects, object, and events. Just read Eckhart again. This is my point when I state that we see things differently (not that I am a mystic). One does not have to see the world as relative objects. When you are happy, what is that happiness relative to? It is not relative to sadness, it is simply happiness all by itself. Our happiness is not relative to how much money we have compared to everyone else, if it were, I would be occupying Wallstreet. When you see a waterfall, what is that relative to? It is not relative to that which is around it or to there being no waterfall, it is simply a waterfall in and of itself. We do not have to compare this waterfall. When a thing is relative, it really boxes that thing in (in my opinion), and it detracts from one's freedom in this world. Things do not have to be "better" or "worse". We can look directly at what creates the appearance of "better" and "worse", and that is Quality. When we do that the concepts of better and worse disappear, and we are left with what is and of itself. > >> Above you stated "very little is universal truth" which we can deal >> with that at a later date since this has an impact on Essentialism. I >> am curious on your use of the word "little". This word is a can of >> worms, let's go fishing some time! > > > What I said was that "because Value is relative to the sensibility of the > observer, very little of what we know can be considered 'universal truth'." > What we "think we know" (one's personal worldview) is often in conflict with > empirical facts (the scientific worldview). Which then, you may ask, is > "universal truth"? My answer is -- neither. Universality itself is > empirical in that it excludes subjective knowledge. In other words, all > known truth relates to Finitude; only Absolute Truth is philosophically > meaningful, and that is embodied in the Essence from which Difference is > derived. OK, I think. I thought you meant that there were a few Universal Truths which can be considered as such. I was wondering what those were. > > [Ham on the direct correlation between our assumptions and living > experience]: >>> >>> We get our "assumptions" from living experience. Even the laws of >>> math and logic are derived experientially. The only "proof" we can >>> ascertain is from those axioms that work. It's the scientific approach >>> to knowledge that we call objective pragmatism. I'm not sure exactly >>> what you're trying to prove here, but existentiality does provide a >>> reliable and consistent "ground to work from", despite the relational >>> differences in human perception. >> >> >> Ham, do you really think you get your assumptions from living >> "experience"? What "experience" do you have that the existential >> philosophers, that you like to bring in, "existed"? You assume that >> this is the case (of course this is quite healthy for such structure >> you emanate). What "experience" do you have that the earth travels >> around the sun? I would claim that most of your assumptions have >> been handed down to you through the written word, or some elderly >> tale. Living experience has provided very little to you in the academic >> setting except for faith in what you read. Again, I am not saying >> that you are incorrect to place much value on these things that are >> "passed along to you". But, most of it is in your head. >> >> The laws of math are NOT derived experientially. Perhaps you are >> thinking of counting bushels of hay or something. I am speaking of >> math, not its application. The math of physics is very different from >> pure math. In set theory, what is the experience of "the set of all >> sets?" Please point to that for me. What is the experience of >> infinity? I have yet to bump into it in a dark alleyway. I have yet >> to see 1+1=2 on my hikes through the mountains, and I have >> looked under every rock. How is it that I can pragmatically >> experience that? It does not exist outside of our heads. > > > I don't know anything about "set theory" or "the experience of infinity", > but I do know that numbers and our numerical system developed from the > experience of counting units and intellectualizing quantitative > relationships. Anyway. you have just proved my point: pragmatic truth is > relative. Well, I am glad I proved your point, although I am not quite sure what you mean by relative. If you mean that there is no overriding Absolute truth that we must all find, then I agree with you. If you mean that we interpret truth then I agree with you; if you mean that truth is a form of rhetoric, then I agree with you. In fact, that last statement is one of the principle conclusions of ZAMM. Math is used for counting things and provide quantitative relationships. Math is also used for many other things. A painter can use a paintbrush to faithfully paint a good rendition of what he sees, or the painter can choose to paint something that has no relationship with what he sees. This is how math works. It can enter into worlds that have no relationship with empirical or pragmatic reality. This is where philosophies based on Math take one. If philosophy can create the fundamental Essence of things (which we will never experience), then so can math. Abstract math has totally dissociated itself from anything we can experience, ever. > > [Mark in defense of Science]: >> >> Yes, I claim to be a scientist only because I make a living at it. I >> also claim to be many other things. I claim to be what I express or >> emanate. For that is my Quality. All of what you present above is a >> subjective interpretation of that which is "relative" to you. How do >> you separate yourself from what you determine? How is it that what >> you experience with your mind in your "physical properties evaluation" >> is different from what you experience with your mind in terms of >> metaphysics? You yourself said that knowledge is particular to the >> knower. Does some knowledge somehow become unparticular? > > > What I experience is relational (i.e., empirical) knowledge. What I intuit > "with my mind" is not knowledge per se, but conceptions having to do with > the Reality we can't know experientially. This, too, is particular > (relative) to me, and while I claim no universal "proof" of its validity, I > believe it may be meaningful to others, like yourself, who are seeking what > some call "higher knowledge". Yes, perhaps we are two sides to a coin. > > [Mark defending his charge that Ham is "caught up in the dogmatic structure > of the 21st century"]: >> >> Yup! All this talk of pragmatic knowledge and how science is devoid >> of subjectivity. It seems to me that you are. You are happy with >> making objects out of everything and labeling them all with words as >> if that is what knowledge is all about. I see a cluttered mind (mine >> is cluttered too, and I am currently using the maid service provided >> by MoQ). > > > Please don't get me wrong, Mark. I have a B.S. myself, and greatly respect > Science and the folks who work in its various disciplines. Indeed, the > scientific method is the most rational and pragmatic approach to empirical > knowledge every devised. However, the human psyche is not empirical, nor > are value-sensibility, desire, emotions, freedom, morality, or metaphysics. > All I'm saying is that Science is not equipped to deal with such phenomena, > although they happen to be fundamental to our core beliefs. Well, we agree on this point. Not everything is measurable. In fact, for everything measurable, I would say that there are ten that aren't. Not everything comes through our senses. > > I realize you are in the formative stage of developing a philosophy of your > own, and I've tried to make allowances for some of the thoughts you've > posted. So far, however, they don't add up to what I could recognize as a > cogent cosmology. Perhaps that's because you're trying to frame your > analogies in a scientific context (Psychology, for example) or are > struggling to conform to the language of Qualityism. In any case, I would > encourage you to articulate any original ideas that support the overall > structure of your worldview. That way, I will be better able to see where > you're heading. OK, I will do my best to present to you a cogent philosophy, and I will review your web page to see how best you would appreciate it. It will, of course include the metaphysics of Science, hopefully no psychology (although that is the mode of the day), a complete disregard for relativism, very little ties to history, and be presented in the Quality of words, for that is the only way we can communicate. If words did not have Quality what would they be? Qualitatively yours, Peace, Mark > > Again, good luck and enjoy the season. > > --Ham > > > > 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
