[MD] Trance state

[Ham Priday]

Hi Joe -- 


> I understand you do not accept the statement of undefined/defined,
> DQ/SQ reality. Yet the most inner you is undefined to me, and you
> would never be able to put it into words.  "Mystical" is a word
> pointing to a need of analogy for understanding like "good".
> I know there is an inner "You" as a social being.
>
> I  won¹t quibble about the word "mystical".  I assume you will
> accept "analogy or metaphor" to describe an "intellectual construct
> of beingness from value" since beingness is not a usual word.

I accept that fact that much, if not most, of reality is undefined, and that 
what is undefined (or "ineffable") is often a topic of metaphysical theory, 
mysticism, metaphor, and poetic prose.  However, I don't accept "statements" 
that are not predicated on plausible concepts, such as a coherent ontology 
with some logic to support it.  In other words, for someone to say, "There's 
a lot we don't know about reality, so let's call it Dynamic Quality and 
interpret the world as its static patterns," I don't give much credence to 
that as a metaphysical theory.

"Beingness" is a word I use categorically to connote experiential 
(objective) existence.  It represents the "being" contingent of 
"being-aware".  Everything we define and describe in the objective world has 
to do with being, whether it's our physical body, the changing seasons, or 
the history of mankind..

Sometimes, I think, we stress words too much in our analysis of existence. 
Definitions are helpful when we're talking about experienced entities or 
observed principles of nature.  But we can't define "unknowns" like essence, 
pure quality, primary source, transcendence, and 'oneness'.  When we try to 
do so, words get in the way of the concept, and our explanation is lost on 
the reader.

Now, while self-awareness is one of those indefinable concepts, there is no 
NEED to define it.  We all sense that it is the locus of our experience, the 
subjective "I"', the knowing self.  There is nothing mystical about being 
aware; it's what we ARE.  Likewise, there's nothing mysterious about Value; 
it's what we DESIRE.  No verbal definition can bring us closer to 
understanding what is self-evident.  Words are useful only in describing 
what is "other" to us, (i.e., the objective world).  Because Being is what 
we are "descriptively" aware of in terms of attributes, relations, and 
dynamics, that is why we can define it..

Anyway, that's how I see it.

Thanks, Joe.
--Ham