[MD] The Quality of Freedom

[Ham Priday]

On Saturday, 12/12/09 6:20 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau at sbcglobal.net> wrote:



> Following the logic in mathematics 1 exists and the denial of 1 is 0.
> Logic requires definition.  What about poetry?
>
> I cannot define myself, and I know I exist.  Not everything I know
> is definable.  Movement does not rely on a definition for existence.
> The act of a being that can with the emphasis on can.  Movement
> depends on what you are looking at.

I disagree that "not everything [you] know is definable".  Empirical 
knowledge is by definition definable.  If existence is the relational system 
in which objects are perceived to evolve in time and space, does this not 
define movement and change?  Doesn't the subjective awareness that 
apprehends your being in the world define "your self"?  Likewise, what you 
don't know can be defined as that about which you are ignorant or not 
informed.

> If I have no experience of a thing I have nothing to gain by it, etc.

That is the pragmatists's excuse for ignorance.  It assumes that only the 
principles and processes you can experience are practical, that the search 
for wisdom is meaningless, and that it's "useless" to learn anything new. 
If philosophy and science had adopted that credo, we would still be warding 
off predators from our dark caves.

> Logical games depend on essence.

Assuming I am playing a "logical game", what does that statement mean?.

> What I say goes and that is the way the game is played!
> If I put my faith in another¹s words we have to be speaking a
> common language, or I have some experience with his words.
> The assertion that there is something in experience that will
> always be undefined makes sense!

Are you saying it's impossible for you to understand or appreciate a 
theoretical concept like DQ or Essence simply because you can't experience 
it?  Or are you implying that what can't be experienced is not worth 
conceptualizing?  If that's what you mean, why are you participating in a 
philosophy forum?

> When I look at the words for definition it seems the first
> question asked is what are they defining? If I have no prior
> experience with what is being defined I will not understand
> the definition.  A definition puts into words what I am curious
> about and gives it a format beyond my knowledge of it.  My
> desire to know more is that my experience is undefined.
> In SOM my experience is indefinable.  In MOQ it is the
> level of evolution that becomes indefinable, but I know
> that not all things are the same.  If I were to have no
> knowledge of the object at all a definition is like a foreign
> language unknown to me.  It is the undefined, yet experienced
> that prompts a definition so we experience the undefined.
> Existence is not going to help.

If I understand you correctly, you are interested only in defining your 
experience.  Is what you're looking for a psychological definition or a 
neuro-physiological definition?  It certainly can't be a philosophical or a 
metaphysical definition.

> A definition merely objectifies what I already have a sense of
> what I want to make more objective.  If I know nothing about
> what I am defining an objective word is not going to change
> my subjective understanding.  Oh! A dictionary is a book on
> metaphysics.  Metaphysics does not provide answers!
> The logic of physics is not totally capable of answering all questions.
> I know what that means. 2.  What just happened is unbelievable?
> I am much more concerned about #2.  I may be killed, or I may
> be the happiest man alive.
>
> As with all knowledge about what I am doing I use analogies
> and metaphors to describe emotional experiences not literal words.
> Words are important is SOL yet L remains indefinable.  Aristotle
> and Aquinas in their theory of knowledge by abstraction appealed
> to the presence of mind and will faculties of a soul for their theory
> of knowledge.  After writing beautiful words set to beautiful music
> Aquinas denigrated his Summa Theologica to the value of straw.
> Not much food there.
>
> Words are always defined unless they aren¹t.  Yet analogies and
> metaphors are necessary for the descriptions of my quality of life.
> I am a pig!  Metaphor correctly that some words carry meaning
> while remaining undefined. Have you never been at a loss for words?
> Or cursed! In a tight situation, and you were understood?  You
> may claim that philosophy is not about such things but pragmatism
> examines all experience.  DQ the indefinable experience, SQ
> definable experience are two unequal horns in existence.

Joe, maybe it's the late hour, but I have no idea what triggered all this 
cynicism, even if it's directed at me.  I can accept criticism, but can't 
respond intelligently to this collage of unclarified assertions.  Perhaps 
you should take a refresher to relieve your frustration, and come back when 
you can state your point more clearly.

Cheers,
Ham