[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Mark,
my comments,
Tim


> 
> [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]
I guess I should admit to an evolving static intellectual structure
built of my recollections of perceptions made faithfully in the utter
present.  It seems that some 'low' level part of that static structure
faithfully disregards the sense of meaninglessness entertained at the
'high' level.  It seems that I can tune two faithfully produced
illusions (analogies, shadows, projections, I don't know what to call
them).  This process of tuning seems to suggest three extremes: 1) I
don't have a clue, 2) I have more than a clue; I am sufficiently skilled
at 'tuning' to happily tune myself to any present, 3) I have more than a
clue; I can level blame on other individuals for the ugliness I see (in
my recollections of 'observations' made faithfully in the utter
present).

regarding option 3), it seems that a prerequisite would be that out of
one's metaphysics drops a (correct-enough) physics.  This doesn't seem
entirely unthinkable as it is a necessary, but not a sufficient
condition.  Further, in case anyone was so arrogant, the utter present
seems always to be the middle of a middle (at least): the first middle
for the unknown, the second middle for the meta- level, and below that
the faithful (absolute), physics.

regarding option 2)...

I guess I am talking about metaphysics because I am unsatisfied with my
position relative to these three extremes.


> >
> > [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.

[Tim]
yes, I agree.  But with one caveat.  I think that there is something I
can say that is True-proper.


> > [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.

[Tim]
ahhhh.  This is exactly what I have Not been saying.  I am suggesting
that they are specifically, and assuredly, different.  I have been
thinking of the faithful I instead, and it is the faithful "I" that can
tune these two illusions.

[Mark]
>  I would agree, if the
> universe is moral, what goes on in our heads is moral.

[Tim]
perhaps there needs to be some caveat about a fair observation and our
own manipulation thereof.

[Mark]
>   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.

[Tim]
one can know what a person means sometimes even when they say it all
wrong.  Also, you can understand a text just as well (or at least
almost) even if a certain fraction of characters have been removed at
random.  It seems that it is the faithful I that can overcome an
unfaithful process.

 

> 
> [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)

[Tim]
the thing for me now: it is the vast quantity of seemingly banal faith
that gives almost all of teh weight to the faithful I, if I can use the
analogy - and so it seems.  In the utter present it seems there is
nothing to my faithless mental map.  Marsh might like the idea of faith
being in between 

 

> 
> [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.
> 

[Tim]
I am wondering if there is really something to tuning the faithful I. 
And if this is why choice must come in.

Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.