[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Mark,
my discussion below,
Tim

On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 22:42:58 -0700, "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> said:
> 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.

[Tim]
When you said "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."  I guess this is what I have been trying to get
at by talking about the inadequacy of the metaphysics.  Perhaps I was
too casual in my use, because it is a flaw of any metaphysics.  To get
in, you have to use faith.  Likewise to get out.  But what is the point
of being 'in'?  You said, "The purpose is to get a better description
[of yourself]".  But better seems only to be 'less wrong'.  why bother
if it is the faith in yourself that is the point of getting out?  It
seems that I am a danger to myself (lol, they should lock me up like
Phaedrus), that the real I has to be utterly protected even from my own
'perception' of myself.

My question then, what does the MoQ have to say?  isn't the social level
here to confine the intellectual?  isn't the fruit of intelligence not
supposed to be a better definition of the self, which is ultimately an
act of faith, but rather something about the social?  And if the best we
can come up with for a self is an analogy, how the hell are we to say
what is a society?!  So then, what society does intelligence have
anything to say about?

> 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)?

[Tim]
haha, I think so though.  This forum really drained me and I had to step
away for a couple of days!

> [Mark]  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.

[Tim]
interesting, I'll have to try to find that!!!

> [Mark]  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.


[Tim]
First, living doesn't really get us there either, but we don't suggest
dropping that!  But I want to get particular about "As such, it does not
truly mirror what is outside, but converts it, and simplifies it."  What
if it does 'convert it', but it does so by a fair, or 'moral', process
so that it is still a 'real perception' of the underlying reality.  I'm
not sure that implies simplification.  It might imply a loss of
particular information...

> 
> >
> > >
> > > 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?

[Tim]
in fact I see it as the ONLY way of introducing absoluteness!  Not that
this is an absolutely solid conclusion in my mind yet...  But, within
the metaphysics, any metaphysics, it seems that everything is relative
to the first step of faith that got you in.  I guess the test of a
metaphysics then would be merely its ability to lead you back to your
own faithful foundation.  You know quality.  (You don't know you.)  It
is the faith that is absolute, all else is a limited perception of the
faithful reality, which limitation might be necessary in order to grant
reality to the faithful reality...  yikes.


> 
> >
> >  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?


hmmmm.... where does choice fit in?  The Dynamic?  Even if thoughts were
an objective impingement, maybe there is a subjective act of permission
to that impingement.  Wouldn't they then be objective in part, but
subjective as a whole?

Tim

> 
> 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
> >
> 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
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

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