[MD] The Dynamics of Value

Tue Oct 26 11:12:02 PDT 2010

Hi Alex,
Yes, the pointing finger is everywhere.  Some, see it more like the middle
finger (don't know if you have that concept in Sweden).

Physics provides great analogies.  The problem with tying a metaphysics to
such analogies is that they will change.  So long as they are considered
analogies in the same way as those provided in the bible, then we are OK.
 It is the direct inference of Truth from things such as quantum mechanics
that is restricting and temporary.  As science progresses other analogies
will develop, and this is only a snapshot in time.

The description or modeling of chaos is an interesting example of depicting
the whole but not the individual.  Often statistics is used for this.
 Statistics, however, breaks down or is not applicable at the individual
level.  The abuse of statistics is indeed prevalent in the media.

But, let's not discuss politics or the wolves will come out.  Let's wait for
Halloween.  Do you have that in Sweden?  When I lived in Holland many years
ago, we celebrated it, and the local Dutch thought is was both weird yet
interesting.  Tricks were not well understood by them, though.  And I often
found myself running at full tilt from an angry house owner..."God ver
domma".

Cheers,
Mark

Love the analogies though.

Cheers,
Mark

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Alexander Jarnroth <
alexander.jarnroth at comhem.se> wrote:

> 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
>
> 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
>