[MD] confused

[Ron Kulp]

 (Ham)
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.

(Ron)
Point taken, I think sometimes the trap is that meanings of words can
change constantly where we perceive them to be static, I have re-read
Your original statement with that in mind and it becomes clear what your
methodology is, being a newbie and accustomed to attack
Outside this forum,I'm probably a bit hypersensitive in this
matter...please have patience me also,
Thanks for clearing the air.


-----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 3:56 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] confused

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

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/