[MD] confused

[Ron Kulp]

Hello,
I realize I'm new to your forum and humbely ask that I may comment on
Ham's statement on the mind in reguard to Marsha's comments,
I feel I must defend Marsha and ask Ham that if the word "mind" is not a
suitable name, I ask what he might suggest? I believe in order
For this forum to communicate with some result rather than just
collectivly "chase our tails" and get lost in definitions and argue over
Thoughts or words taken out of context and miss what the other is trying
to say, we have to agree as the charter states about having to have read
certain works so we all have some frame of reference when discussing our
ideas...I would think this would apply towhen you use the word "mind" in
our discussions everyone in these talks knows what is meant,  it seems
to the outside observer that sometimes you folks are just interested in
flexing your wit rather than honestly addressing an idea. The mind is
cryptic as you were unable to acuratley define it.
Is'nt that what you people are about or am I missing it?


 I avoid Mind altogether, as it suggests an extra-corporeal or
collective realm of intelligence (which I reject), and because it is too
often confused with the brain [hence the asterisk in the Thesaurus
listing] and the general thought process.  Mind is simply too ambiguous
a term to be meaningful in epistemological discussions, as can be seen
from Marsha's cryptic
definition: "a constellation of patterns of quality."

I hope this resolves some of the confusion.

Regards,
Ham



-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ham Priday
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 2:58 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] confused


SA and Marsha --

SA asks:
> What is MIND?

Marsha answers:
> I think MIND is a constellation of patterns of quality.

SA then procedes to tell Marsha that Mind is not [cannot be?] defined:
> Thus, mind, for you, has been a constellation of patterns of quality, 
> you've just defined it so. Yet, as a reality (a quality) mind is 
> undefined, always, as well.  Thus, it is always pre-intellectual and 
> we may, if we want to, keep defining it, again, and again, and again.

> I don't really want to. ...

You may recall my stating that a philosopher must carefully define the
terms he uses, and use them consistently; otherwise he risks confusing
his readers.  It seems to me that terms are being thrown around here
without any attempt at definition, and everyone is using them according
to his own idea of their meaning.  No wonder there is confusion!

Pirsig's favorite term for conscious awareness is Experience.  Now,
that's a common enough word whose meaning would appear to be universally
understood.
But it isn't.  For example, do we experience values, such as Beauty,
Love, Justice, Goodness, and Wisdom?  If you say yes, you make no
distinction between cognizance of physical phenomena, apprehension of
abstract concepts, and one's emotional state (feelings). Yet, such
distinctions are important when dealing with epistemological theories.
If they aren't defined, we're each be trying to communicate our ideas in
our own private language.

I used the key word 'Perception' (defined as "understanding") to access
a page on Thesaurus.com and found the following synonyms among the terms
listed: apprehension, awareness, conception, consciousness, discernment,
feeling, realizing, recognition, sensation, thought.

I then looked under 'Awareness' (defined -- wrongly IMO -- as
"knowledge") and found these synonyms listed: apprehension, cognizance,
comprehension, experience, mindfulness, recognition, sensibility,
sentience, understanding.
(Note that at least two of the synoyms -- apprehension and recognition
-- were duplicates of those listed under Perception.)

I repeated the search for 'Concept' (defined as "idea") and copied these
synonyms: abstraction, conception, conceptualization, hypothesis,
intellection, perception, supposition, theory, thought, view.  (Here the
duplicates were perception and thought.)

Finally, I copied the following synonyms for 'Mind' (defined as
"intelligence"): apperception, brain*, cognizance, conception,
cognizance, intellect, intuition, judgment, mentality, perception,
psyche, reason, soul, spirit, wits.  (Again, the duplicates were
conception, cognizance, and
perception.)

MD participants use all of these terms, among others, often to mean the
same thing.  If your epistemology has significant differences, you will
not be expressing your views with any degree of clarity.

Since I also deal with these concepts (e.g., abstractions), perhaps
Ham's "simplified" nomenclature for consistent usage may be helpful to
the MoQers.

I use Sensibility as an all-encompassing term for non-subjective (i.e.,
non-proprietary) awareness.  This would apply to pre-conscious,
pre-intellectual organisms, the perception of Value (psychosomatic
feelings) by man, as well as the sentience of any supra-natural source
(e.g., Essence, DQ, deity).

I reserve Awareness for the conscious apprehension of creatures with
brain stems.  (In the case of human beings, who possess self-awareness,
I use the term "proprietary awareness".)

Intellect, and its verb-form "intellection", is restricted to human
cognizance of ideas, precepts, and relational constructs of objective
reality.

I avoid Mind altogether, as it suggests an extra-corporeal or collective
realm of intelligence (which I reject), and because it is too often
confused with the brain [hence the asterisk in the Thesaurus listing]
and the general thought process.  Mind is simply too ambiguous a term to
be meaningful in epistemological discussions, as can be seen from
Marsha's cryptic
definition: "a constellation of patterns of quality."

I hope this resolves some of the confusion.

Regards,
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/