[MD] BeTteR-neSs (undefined or otherwise)

[118]

Hey Ham,

Yup, still with you.  I got distracted by some nonsense on another post, but
now I'm back and in tune.  Let me just say that I like your ontology in
terms of the pictures it provides me.  I seem to get stuck at places where
there is a jump.  Where the actual point of negation occurs is one such
place.  But, I am asking questions that haven't been successfully answered
to my satisfaction yet, so perhaps the question is the wrong approach.  I do
have a tendency to obsess.  Sometimes a good thing sometimes not.

[Ham]

> Mark, if it's alright with you, I'd like to spend our time on a thesis we
> can agree on, rather than dissect one that gives us problems.  I've given up
> trying to accommodate the fundamentals of Esentialism to Mr. Pirsig's
> Quality ontology.  Obviously, Quality/Value figures prominently in both
> philosophies; but the effort to make meaningful comparisons requires a major
> shift in rhetoric, which only adds to the confusion.
>
> Theism is commonly understood as belief in a supernatural entity, and while
> Essence "transcends" difference and otherness, it does not "stand above"
> nature or experiential existence.  I hold no animus toward theism which,
> after all, is just another expression of man's need for spiritual
> completion.  In my ontology, the individual self is "estranged" from its
> absolute source, and this need is sensed as the Value of Essence.  The
> experience generated by  value-sensibility is the appearance of a
> self-subsistent world of finite things and events in process.
>

[Mark]
I am not a religious scholar so what I gather from theism is directly from
authors that describe such a thing.  Two disparate examples would be C.S.
Lewis, and Meister Eckhart.  The first author is a rational approach, which
is very compelling.  For example I find The Screwtape Letters to be quite
informative.  On the other hand, the little I have understood from Eckhart,
does not imply a supernatural entity, but more of a union.  A similar union
could be envisioned with Quality if the subject-object demarkation is
dropped.  This is probably blasphemy in this forum, but I am not new to
controversy.

When something like the term "Father" is used, the way I read that as the
feeling conveyed is one similar to that of a kind father as experienced by a
child.  It doesn't mean that there is a real father up there somewhere, it
is an analogy.  So if we are speaking of a big human-like brain in the sky
which watches over us with human sentiments, then theism is not for me.  It
is the awareness that I am speaking of, not the literal.

[Ham]

> We have the resources of physical and biological science to define the
> principles and dynamics of that world so that we may shape it to our
> practical needs.  Like mathematics and logic, objective science is based
> solely on empirical knowledge.  If we need something more, we must turn to
> religion, philosophy, or mysticism which are based on intuitive precepts and
> (to some degree) the faith of the believer.  Whether it's Platonism,
> Buddhism, Hinduism, Islamism, Judeo-Christianity, Zoroastrianism,
> Existentialism, Qualityism, or Essentialism, we can derive no value from it
> unless it has sufficient credibility to warrant our belief.
>

[Mark]
Yes, we have been able to describe a small amount in a way which enables us
to harness certain aspects of the world as we understand it.  Shaping it may
be a bit optimistic.  Objective science proceeds by conceiving of a
hypothesis.  Such a hypothesis may be based on limited data, on results from
mathematical modeling, or just out of the blue (intuitive).  It is then
challenged with experiments which provide data.  The data are then
interpreted according to the model to see if they fit.  So, science is a mix
of expectations and interpretation.  Objective data is viewed from a point
of view.  Similar data can result in a number of interpretations.  Often
data are selected for unconsciously.   Experimental design is an art as well
as having certain rules.  Elevation to a theory happens when the description
is considered to have passed the requirements.  Such requirements are often
subjective.  For example certain interpretations labeled as paranormal are
subjectively discounted.  This may be simply a function of our knowledge and
instrumentation to date.  In many ways, the way we measure things makes them
what they are.  I am not even going into quantum mechanics here.

>
> [Ham]



> If the word of God recorded in scripture is analogy, it won't suffice for
> the believer.  If the Prophet's comandments are unconscionable to the
> Muslim, he will become an Infidel.  If the mystic cannot attain Nirvana by
> the practice of contemplation, he will turn to alternate belief systems.
> Ultimately, each of us seeks a conception of reality that satisifes our
> spiritual quest.
>

[Mark]
Yes, of course.  The premise taken is that there is Truth.  If truth becomes
relative it could be enough to drive one crazy.  So, you are correct, a
fundamental acceptance of one's belief as real outside of one's belief is
necessary, for this thing to work for most.  When I use the term analogy or
description, I am simply speaking from my point of view.  Of course that is
an analogy as well, which I believe to be real.

>
> [Ham]



> One further clarification: A "concept" must be defined in words in order to
> be conveyed to others.  (That's why metaphysics is "nothing but
> definitions," as Prisig complained.)  But a "conception" is one's conceptual
> understanding, whether it is set in words or equations, analogized, or
> merely described.  This, I submit, is what we are after.  The rest is
> typically philosophology, opinion, polemics, or anecdotal "what I read last
> night" commentary.
>

[Mark]
Yes, a conception can be wordless, it is an awareness that must then use
words to relate one's awareness to another.  I suppose there are different
degrees of concepts in terms of how much they encompass.  Perhaps one can
have a conception of conceptions.  Regardless, the words or concepts are
methods for creating an internal awareness that then does not need words to
support it.  Such awareness can direct ones view on many things without
relating back to its beginning or grasping.  It's like feeling good after a
movie, it is not necessary to understand why you feel good to feel good.  Or
perhaps leaving a lengthy sermon and being nice to people for a while
without knowing why.  Music or art can provide conceptualization as well,
sometimes difficult to convert to words.  I am still waiting for the day
when harnessed telepathy does away with words and entire conceptualizations
can be transferred.  There would be much less disagreement.  Either you like
it or you don't, no convincing necessary.  None of these sly manipulative
bastards.

>
>
So, still feeling copacetic Ham?

Mark

>
> 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/md/archives.html
>