[MD] Bitterness over Betterness

[Ham Priday]

Hi Marsha and Ron --

> Marsha:

> The 'unknowable, undefinable undividable Goodness'
> that I spoke of is outside of the language's ability to explain
> it, because language seeks to divide, describe and define.
> With language the subject and object are created.  I suggest
> you might say there seem to be two types of goodness/
> betterness.  There is the static, measurable, judgmental type
> which is associated with a subject (ego/individual), and
> there is an ineffable Goodness(interconnectedness/nonduality).
>
> Ron:
> Marsha, I think that is the best way to put it. That was an
> excellent explanation. Well done for what it's worth.

Wouldn't you then say that the "judgmental type" of goodness is the only 
goodness we can know?  And how would you say we know it?

I would say that goodness is what makes us feel good, whether it's the 
experience of a summer breeze, the sound of music, a woman's beauty, a bonus 
awarded for extra effort, the just punishment of a criminal, or finding the 
solution to a dilemma.  I would further say that goodness is not intrinsic 
to any of these events, but that it is the word we use to describe our 
emotional response to the experience.  In other words, goodness is 
"judgmental" precisely because we decide what is good in relation to other 
experiences that make us feel "less than good", or bad.

As for "ineffable Goodness" with which we have no direct experience, isn't 
this a conception or belief that the individual takes delight in without 
evidence of its truth?  Since concepts and beliefs do not exist by 
themselves, but only in the mind of individuals, I don't see why you 
classify "interconnectedness" and "nonduality" as non-egoistic goodness.

By the way, everything you have stated about goodness also applies to Value 
(Quality).  Unrealized goodness or value doesn't exist -- even if we 
believe, or are persuaded, that it has a metaphysical source.  If you 
haven't already guessed, the point I am trying to make is that Goodness, 
Value, and Betterness all relate to the emotional/intellectual state of the 
individual subject.  Which suggests that in the absence of subjective 
sensibility (realization) goodness is meaningless.

Finally, I would submit that this conclusion has everything to do with the 
way we know and feel (epistemology) and nothing to do with the divisiveness 
of language or verbal definitions (semiotics).

How much of this will you allow me, Marsha and Ron?  Or, are you both in 
total disagreement?

Best regards,
Ham