[MD] confused(I hope you don't mind)

[Heather Perella]

Ham,

     [Ham said to Ron]
> Thanks for the Wikipedia quote on Mind, but I know
> SA's mind, and it won't accept word definitions for
concepts.

     Yes and no.  I will except word definitions, but
I don't think those word definitions are the end of
the story.

     [Ham said to Ron]
> For some reason -- probably the influence of ZEN --

     Yes, but that's only due to me learning what Zen
is, because I experienced this influence before I
realized what is Zen.  To say Zen is just to put
Spiritual Adirondack's (SA's) realization into a Zen
story that other people may be familiar with. 
Remember how I tried to show the relationship between
superposition in quantum physics and human-animal
relationships.  That was another story about this.

     [Ham to Ron]
> he feels that definitions "objectify" values that
are best sensed
> holistically, as when
> contemplating the oneness of Nature.  And that is
> true as a pantheistic
> ideology.

     What's pantheistic ideology, again?  You probably
have mentioned this before, not sure.

     [Ham continues]
> We do objectify values in common
> experience as a normal function
> of the human intellect.  That's how we interrelate
> and communicate  with
> each other as human beings.

     That's why I'm fine with word definitions.  I've
always said we always think.  We never can stop
thinking.

     [Ham]
> What SA doesn't appreciate is that Philosophy
> serves to explain reality.  We can only explain it
> in words, and if the
> words are ambiguous or mean different things to
> different people, the
> concept may go misunderstood.

     That's the downfall on relying on words, totally,
due to reality having a story that our words will not
have the foresight to recognize.  This aspect of
reality where we can talk about these mysterious
notions being a part of reality - is putting this
aspect of reality into words.  The story is alive.  I
wouldn't get too caught up in one story.  That will
only leave out the bigger story.

     [Ham on the pudding phrase]
> This is significant conceptually, because it
> demonstrates that value (or
> quality) is sensed directly -- prior to its being
> objectivized by the
> intellect.

     I would also add that senses, objectification,
and intellect are prior to intellectual activity.  We
can also realize the values of that which realizes the
values.

     [Ham]
> Value is a psycho-emotional realization
> that preempts reason.

     Reason has value that is pre-intellectual, and
then we intellectualize upon reason, if we so desire.

     [Ham]
> Thus, the value of a pudding is in the tasting.  The
> value of a symphony is
> in the hearing.  The value of a sunset is in the
> viewing.  And the value of
> a concept is in the understanding (or realization). 
> As an essentialist, I
> would add that the value of Essence is in the
> awareness.  And, as SA would
> have it, being-aware is pre-intellectual
> consciousness.

     I believe I would have it explained that way. 
Are you translating me Ham?  I know you don't like
that word Ham, but I really don't know any other way
of putting it.  I mean no harm.  In the end, it's not
really a translation.  It is reality.

     [Ham]
> So, my preference
> for Webster's second definition of Mind seems to be
> right on target: "the state of being characterized
by sensation, 
> emotion, volition, and thought."

     I still see mind encompassing a definition that
would need to include a tree, a black hole in the
middle of the galaxy, and a proton.  

> What do you think?

     I think that was pretty interesting.


Spiritual Adirondack (SA)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com