[MD] The Dynamics of Value

Tue Oct 26 04:40:05 PDT 2010

I came to think of another analogy. It's what Jesus said concerning the
"kingdom of God", and I would call that the one sentence in the whole of NT
containing most wisdom. Ha says of "the Kingdom of God" that you can't point
at it and say "Here is it" or "There is it". And then he adds, "don't trust
anyone saying such a thing, because he doesn't know what he's talking
about".
In Plato, it would be Theaitetos (Theaetetus), analyzing such concepts and
their insufficiencies.

But there are useful concepts concerning knowing what it is you don't know.
One is derived from quantum mechanics and concerns uncertainty of
measurements.  I've seen that uncertainty-concept applied in other contexts
as well, such as economics and cell biology, when considering dynamics of
systems of non-linear differential equations. There is also an other
uncertainty concept derived from the first concerning Chaos Dynamics, such
as weather forecasts.  Such deterministic Chaos can be completely modeled
but the actual state of the system cannot be determined/measured with
sufficient precision to eliminate uncertainty. But these uncertainties are
just concerned with "knowing what it is one doesn't know". It would even be
logically impossible to "know what it is one doesn't know that one doesn't
know".

Going back to the thesis of the absolute reality: I would agree with the
thesis on the existence of such an ABSOLUTE reality, but I wouldn't agree
concerning an ULTIMATE concept of that reality.

/A

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Alexander
Jarnroth
Sent: den 26 oktober 2010 12:36
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] The Dynamics of Value

Hello

No harm in using that name.

***

To me, it seems, that you would like to define DQ as change and then saying
that the direction in which the change, as a kind of vector, points, should
be termed essence. This "attractor", termed "source", should then be
absolute, in the sense of independent on anything.
I, myself, presume such an independent existence of "that which is", but I
think that which is, in an absolute sense, is mentally unreachable. But of
course, well working concepts should somehow correspond to this.
However, I wouldn't term DQ as change towards something, rather change from.
Change from old concepts to new concepts (being this concepts descriptive,
evaluative or both). And I don't mean that a change away from something
leaves that thing obsolete.
If all possible useful concepts form an infinite set, as I think it does,
then it just doesn't matter how much you know, there would still be an
infinity left. And if any arrow should point in an infinite-dimensional
space (as I somehow believe both the space of concepts and the space of
"what is" to be) you couldn't possible have an arrow pointing in any
specific direction in every dimension. I think you could imagine an
infinite-dimensional arrow somehow to be pointing "everywhere", if you
should have one such arrow there. But then, this would be equivalent to
having "change away from" as a value in itself, because the direction of
such a change could be chosen arbitrarily and would the thus have some kind
of correspondence with this infinite dimensional arrow. The only change that
would be immoral, is in the direction towards what wouldn't work, but anyone
heading in that direction would just punish himself by necessity.
Among the Nag Hammadi-texts there is one which I like, called Allogenes the
Stranger.

There are a few lines which I like:

"Even if he is endowed with blessedness and perfection and silence, He is
not the blessed one, nor is he perfection or stillness.
But he is something existing THAT ONE CANNOT KNOW AND IS AT REST.

Rather they are completely unknowable aspects of him, While he is much
superior in beauty than all good things.
And in this way he is unknowable in every respect, And it is through them
all that he is in them all.

Not only is he unknowable knowledge that is proper to him, HE IS ALSO UNITED
WITH THE IGNORANCE THAT SEES HIM

Whether one sees in what way he is unknowable, or sees him as he is in every
respect, or would say that he is something like knowledge, he has acted
impiously against him, being liable to judgment because he did not know God.
He will not be judged by that One, who is neither concerned for anything nor
has any desire, BUT HE IS JUDGED BY HIMSELF BECAUSE HE HAS NOT FOUND THE
TRULY EXISTING ORIGIN. He was blind apart from the quiescent source of
revelation...

...Concerning all these matters, you have heard certainly. Do not seek
anything more, but go. ... It is not appropriate to dissipate further
through repeated seeking..."

But of course you could use any definition that is useful, but I think every
definition is a simplification. It always misses something. It can't include
all and still be useful. So there can't be any final answer. Everything that
is useful, you can use, but I don't think there is anything more. DQ to me,
defined simply, would be "trying to find out what you don't know, you don't
know". You can't have a goal-directed search then, because then you know
what it is you don't know, or you're seeking for something which probably
doesn't is (or exists).
I have a little saying, in opposition to Jesus, which goes: "He who seeks
won't find anything, but he who doesn't seek could possibly find anything".
Concerning vision if you let an objects oscillate at about 60hz and with the
right amplitude, the object would vanish from the vision from any humane
being beholding it for some time. But what a person would see, where the
object once were, would not be a void, or anything like that, but just the
surroundings filling in.
In the first book Pirsig used a metaphor which I liked. "To see in the
corner of the eye". The cells at the end of the retina only fire when noting
a change in the measured light. To you actually just see such sudden changes
in the corner of your eye. In the center of vision you see a lot of details
instad, but you must continually change the focus to really see patterns or
changes. But if you think you know what you're looking for, you would always
move the center of your vision there, and just miss these little changes
which could possibly be noted in the corner.
I think there was something similar in the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy.
It was called "somebody else's problem". It could only be seen if just
happened to note it in the corner of your eye. It's a good metaphor anyway
you put it.

/A

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ham Priday
Sent: den 26 oktober 2010 06:55
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] The Dynamics of Value

Hi Alex --

> So guess that what you're really interested in is what in MoQ was 
> termed dynamic quality. I think you really shouldn't define that, 
> because by defining it, you propose to know what it is, and then it 
> wouldn't be dynamic or transcendental or whatever you may wish to call 
> it.  I think that the ability to continuously reform yourself is the 
> only "pattern" of dynamic to be found. You just have to be open 
> minded.

Yes, I am really interested in the primary source of reality, because if we
don't take it into account we will never have a complete ontological thesis.

However, I don't understand the premise you 've presented as an argument
against definition.  There is no logical reason that a concept like DQ or
Essence cannot be defined.  It may be indescribable, unknowable, or beyond
empirical reach, but then so are God, Perfection, and absolute Goodness. 
Yet we have defined them, because we understand what such attributes
ultimately must be.  You say that "by defining it, it wouldn't be dynamic or
transcendent."  Why should a definition limit or affect the nature of that
which transcends word meanings?

Back in the 15th century, a mathematician and astronomer named Nicholas of
Cusa theorized that God is the uncreated "Not-other".  The significance of
this theory is profound.  It has afforded philosophers a valuable
metaphysical tool - a definitive label for the ineffable Source whose
attributive nature is otherwise indefinable.  I have used Cusa's First
Principle as the metaphysical foundation of Essentialism.

Does Dynamic Quality accurately name the Source whose "dynamics" are 
unknowable and whose "quality" is realizable only to man?   I think not. 
The term "dynamic" suggests a flow or movement like evolution, which applies
to the physical world but not to a transcendent source.  I happen to believe
this uncreated source does not evolve or change, but is immutable. That's
why I have named this metaphysically necessary source Absolute Essence. 
It's a non-descriptive appellation, yet one that is relevant and logically
workable for an ontological scheme.

Of course, I realize that it may not be appropriate in this forum to depart
"too much" from the author's vernacular.  At the same time, constantly
throwing words like "dynamic", "static", and "patterns" around with
impunity, without really knowing what they infer, tends to conflate ideas
into meaningless "word games" that have little bearing on philosophical
concepts.  I really hope Mark can successfully apply his "logical constants"

to metaphysical axioms so that we can avoid the misconceptions that careless
word usage generates.

Thanks for your inputs, Alex (may I address you by that name?).  I am only
acquainted with Huxley's 'Brave New World," but will investigate "Island",
which, as you say, may present his idea of a more positive world.

Essentially yours,
Ham

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