[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

Thu Nov 4 22:42:58 PDT 2010

Hi Tim,
Some discussion below
Mark

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:37 PM, <rapsncows at fastmail.fm> wrote:

>
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 08:39:17 -0700, "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> said:
> > [Tim]
> > > I know you have suggested some homework for me regarding this term
> > > 'analogy', I'll get to it.  But let me ask: am I too an analogy?
> > >
> >
> > [Mark]
> > Good question.  I could give you the simple answer which would be that
> > you
> > are an analogy to me based on what I read from you, but you cannot be an
> > analogy to yourself.
>
> [Tim]
> okay, then I will not have to worry about truth and me being somehow
> less real.  Good.  But, based on my understanding of 'analogy' thus far
> (which word I still don't like), I would say that I am an analogy to
> myself as well.  I have faith that I am, but I can't define myself
> precisely.  I have faith that there is such a thing as truth, though I
> cant express it exactly.  If it is merely this fundamental imperfection
> then I will suggest we not use the word analogy, because it has a
> traditional use, when you are obviously talking about something else.
> If there weren't a difference between the cases when you are obviously
> talking about something else and the cases when you are really trying to
> get at IT, we would either be denying the existence of the real, or we
> wouldn't be able to know to think that when phaedrus talks of a train,
> and the back of it being the static quality, and the front of it being
> dynamic, that we shouldn't actually think that there is some real live
> train somewhere

[Mark]
I'm fine to drop the word analogy.  I'm getting tired of it.  Your brain
creates a description of yourself, and tries to describe that description.
 Perhaps this could be termed self reflective consciousness.  A big circle
like thinking about thinking.  What this circle would imply to me is that
thinking is not at the foundation of self.  In other words there is
something more real than the thoughts.  So we are using descriptions of
something which does not quite describe it.  The purpose is to get a better
description, thus the effort in metaphysics.  What makes it better is how
much it explains to fulfill one's own needs.  Some are bottomless pits.
 Those take a long time to fill.

I like the metaphor (see, not analogy) of a comet leaving static stuff in
its tail.  Yes, the use of train is a metaphor.  Such a thing has agreed
upon properties which are used to describe something a little more
metaphysical (that is an analogy, the use of agreed upon properties to
describe something which you are trying to convey, but is not so easy when
the words do not exist).

>
> >  The way that I use the term analogy is to provide
> > the
> > awareness that what we create with words are a description of things but
> > are
> > not the actual things themselves.  Plato is better at describing this
> > than
> > I.
>
> so I think that I hate the word analogy here (though I've yet to do too
> much homework).  In fact, though perhaps this is because I didn't value
> it, I don't recall phaedrus using this concept.  THere is a difference
> between having a small but fundamental inadequacy in mental mapping to
> the real, and talking about something entirely different in order to
> help you see past a large inadequacy that is keeping you well away from
> the real.
>

[Mark]
OK, stop saying analogy, what are you a masochist (ha,ha)?  Phaedrus uses it
towards the end of ZMM.  I believe is was one of the things that left him
without any foundation and thus lying on the floor.  Instead of analogy, I
will now use the term mental mapping, same thing.  We map mentally in a way
that is consistent with the manner in which our brain operates, nerves and
all that.  As such, it does not truly mirror what is outside, but converts
it, and simplifies it.  Such simplified truth can never be Truth.  But such
a notion does not really impart any more understanding, so I'll drop mental
mapping as well.

>
> >
> > We can create analogies for truth as complex as we want, but are still
> > only
> > left with the descriptions.  Such descriptions are self-referential
> > because
> > they are created by the mind.  "A" lead to "B", therefore "B" is a result
> > of
> > "A".  For me it is important to recognize the descriptive sense of things
> > and not pretend that there is more to them than that, or it is easy to
> > get
> > stuck and righteous.
>
> I agree that humility is proper.  I agree that we should recognize any
> fundamental limitations.  I agree that we should always look to see
> where we might have erred.  But I think that we must have faith that
> there is a real.  I think that we must have faith that I am an I, and
> that you are a you.
>

[Mark]
When you recognize it as faith, doesn't that remove some of its
absoluteness?

>
>  There are of course meaningful descriptions,
> > science
> > is full of them, but such description are floating in the mind, and
> > simply
> > point towards something and create awareness. Descriptive understanding
> > is
> > useful for agreement and conversation, and in the end unity, and is a
> > basis
> > for sharing awarenesses.  It also just as readily leads to polarization
> > because some believe there is Truth associated with them, which is
> > dictated
> > from somewhere outside the mind and therefore compelling.
> >
> > So, my suggestion is to free up your mind from some hardened premises and
> > ask questions.  The end result is to provide yourself with something
> > meaningful that you can believe in.  This does not bring in the terms
> > relative, or conditional.  It is deeper than that, it is you.
>
> Bango!  All analogies would be meaning-less if there were not something
> meaningful to which they pointed.  No analogies would be thought or
> uttered if there was not a cause for BELIEF.  I might flip it around at
> this point and suggest you free up your mind from the hardened premise
> of 'analogy'.
>
[Mark]
I guess it depends on where the meaning comes from.  I would agree, that
meaning, and Quality for that matter, cannot rely on an internal
satisfaction.  Because that would beg the question: Internal of what?  What
if everything were external (or objects), even what we think of as
subjective?  Then certainly meaning would have objectivity.  If our thoughts
were happening to us as an objective impingement, what remains subjective?

let me know,
> Tim

 Don't know if I can let you know, that is up to you.

Cheers,
Mark

>
>
> --
>
>  rapsncows at fastmail.fm
>
> --
> http://www.fastmail.fm - Access all of your messages and folders
>                          wherever you are
>
> 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
>