[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[118]

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 4:55 PM, <rapsncows at fastmail.fm> wrote:

>
> [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.
>

[Mark]
It seems to me that metaphysics is for those who are dissatisfied with the
agreed on premises of reality.  Less wrong, or better, the attempt is to
create a meaningful interpretation for oneself.  History is full of the
great thinkers that put this to paper, perhaps because they needed to be
heard.  The overwhelming majority of people do not do this, and keep their
metaphysics to themselves.  Personally, I learn the most from discussion.
 So, why bother indeed, if it does not have meaning to you.  I agree.

>
> [Tim]

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?
>
>
> [Mark]
I often step on people's toes with my interpretation of Quality.  The
supremacy of the intellect to all else is also one of the concepts that I
have trouble with.  So in terms of what the MOQ says on this subject, I
prefer to let others explain that.

Again, let me explain analogy as I use it.  Let's suppose that Reality
cannot be defined.  For that matter, there is not a thing that can be fully
defined without some kind of circular reference, in my opinion.  Definitions
provide awareness, but there is often conflict in definitions.  So, what we
do is find something that we agree on as to its properties.  We all know
what a train is, right.  So it makes sense to use the properties of a train
to explain Quality.  In this way we can transfer information which then
results in a personal concept.

We must be careful, however, because even analogies are open to
interpretation.  For example the notion of a caboose, could be mistaken for
the (fine) derriere of a woman.  In this situation, somebody may get their
feelings hurt through misinterpretation.  In the same way the idea of a
train pumping its way into a bushy dark tunnel at the end of a gorge may
create the wrong understanding of Quality.  Just ask Sigmund.  So that is
all I have to say about analogies.



> [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]
>
yeah, know the feeling, for me it means that I am probing the limits of my
thoughts.

>
>
> [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...
>

[Mark]
I don't know if you have the saying As Above, So Below.  The microcosm in
our head is the same as the macrocosm outside.  I would agree, if the
universe is moral, what goes on in our heads is moral.   What is simplified
is more the attempt at communication through language.  This isn't meant to
diminish it since language does have powerful forces, but it also has its
limitations, yea, loss of the information present in awareness that creates
the thought that creates the language.  The same thing is happening to the
person you are talking to except in reverse order, words to thoughts to
awareness.  There is a lot of places for it to be screwed up.  Full transfer
of awareness is impossible at this time.  We use a digital cable for that
now, the bandwidth is somewhat limited.

>
>
> > [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.
>

[Mark]
Yes, I'm with you there on faith.  It is a tried and true method, many of
the great thinkers rested their premises on such a thing.  Most people will
deny that they are operating on faith.  For whatever reason, they see their
reality as something divine.  Without any faith there is no meaning,
literally.  So, accepting such we can be thankful and move on with our
slicing and dicing (a cooking metaphor for metaphysics)

>
>
> [Mark previously]



> 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?
>

[Mark]
In my opinion, the sense of free will comes from more than an intellectual
rationalization.  Choice is a fundamental aspect of existence.  If we think
it is illusionary, well then that is our choice (free will).  One can create
paradoxes that point somewhere.  Usually it is to the inadequacies of logic.

>
> [Mark]
Let me just say that I thank you for your endurance.  I do not have any
command of the Scandinavian languages even though I worked for a Danish
company for a number of years.  Is Denmark considered to be part of
Scandinavia?  So we must converse in a language foreign to you.   Cheers.

>
> 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
>