[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[118]

Hi Alex,

Yes, you will find a lot of SEPs in this forum.  One of the contributors,
John, is fond of Adams as am I.

I believe, and I am ready to be corrected, that the MOQ does provide
direction.  If we use the vector analogy, the components of such a vector
would include "betterness".  This gives direction but not destination.  In
terms of seeking, I prefer the term creating.  If nothing else, we has
humans are highly creative.  It is this drive which keeps the development
going.  So, I would paraphrase you saying (with apologies) as follows:
"He who [creates will create everything], but he who doesn't [create] could
possibly [create] anything."

Cheers,
Mark

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Alexander Jarnroth <
alexander.jarnroth at comhem.se> wrote:

> 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
>
> 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
>