[MD] confused

[Ham Priday]

Greetings Ron; Hi SA and Marsha --

Apparently I've added to the confusion rather than helping to resolve it.

Ron said:
> 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
> collectively "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 to when 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 accurately define it.
> Isn't that what you people are about or am I missing it?

I agree with your stated objective, Ron, and "getting lost in definitions"
is certainly not what I'm advocating.  The point I was trying to make is
that when a philospher is not specific in his use of terms, the reader is
left to interpret his meaning; and interpreting and re-interpreting the MoQ
consumes the bulk of discussion here.

The problem isn't that "mind" is a cryptic term, but that it has many
meanings (as I tried to demonstrate), and a description like "a
constellation of patterns of quality" is not very helpful for a reader who
is trying to make some sense out of Pirsig's philosophy.  I don't mean to
criticize Marsha -- actually her concept is both creative and alliterative.
But SA asked for a definition: "What is MIND?"  Would Marsha's description
explain Mind to someone unfamiliar with Pirsig's thesis?  Does it explain it
to you?

What I'm suggestion is that if we are going to use Mind in a discussion,
let's first decide what we mean by it.  Are we talking about the brain, grey
cells, cognizance, memory, soul, or psyche?  Quite possibly we mean none of
these things and should be using another term.  Pirsig speaks of Intellect
as generalized awareness or cognizance, for example, so perhaps MoQers
should stick with the author's terminology.  On the other hand, some of us
have the view that intellect is a faculty of individual reasoning rather
than a level of Quality to which one aspires.  This is where a proper
definition at the outset can avoid our "getting lost" in endless circular
debates.

SA said:
> The problem with this approach by Ham is
> that cultures throughout the earth have applied
> definitions, and yet he thinks he has the best
> definition. ...

No.  Frankly I don't have a good definition for Mind, and that's exactly why
I avoid using this ambiguous term.  As I said previously, I prefer
"proprietary awareness" if we're talking about human consciousness, or
"sensibility" if we're talking about the reactive responses of brainless
organisms or any non-subjective entity.

> If we had enough people to share and agree with
> certain definitions, as Ham wants us to with his,
> then we would have another culture.  This is not
> a new concept.  People have been doing this for
> ages.  What's new is Ham thinks he has the best new
> definitions and this new culture called Ham's culture
> isn't satisfying enough.

What, exactly, is "Ham's culture" and how would you distinguish it from
yours?

> To get back to the original point, being cryptic
> seems to be an element of reality.  This cryptic
> element is, I believe, due to the aspects of reality
> that are not human.

If everything we know about the world is an experiential construct, it would
seem that all  "aspects of reality" are human, and can therefore be
expressed in non-cryptic human terms.  (That, to me, would include Mind and
Consciousness.)  Should we decide there's something else that we can't
experience, it becomes a theory or concept.  Dynamic Quality is such a
concept.  Essence is another.  If these concepts remain "cryptic" to the
reader, then the author has not properly defined them.

Have patience with us, Ron and Marsha.  No one is trying to railroad you
into a belief system.  We just see things in different ways.  In philosophy,
as well as in society, it's called being a free-thinking individual.

With apologies and best regards,
Ham