[MD] Bitterness over Betterness

[MarshaV]

Greetings Ham,  

On Apr 27, 2011, at 12:39 AM, Ham Priday wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 
> Ham:
> 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?

Marsha:
If you mean by know 'conceptually know,' than you may be correct.  This type of knowing is the  recognition of established patterns.  


> Ham:
> 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.

Marsha:
Man iss the measure of all things.  


> Ham:
> 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.

Marsha:
There is direct experience with the "ineffable Goodness."    I classify the "ineffable Goodness" as "interconnectedness" and "nonduality" because these terms represent a state of indivisibility, without reification of I and object.  


> Ham:
> 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.

Marsha:
Unrealized goodness may not "exist," but it can be experienced.  The metaphysical source/definition is not the experience.   


>   Ham:
> 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.

Marsha:
Here you are addressing the 'static, measurable, judgmental type' of goodness that IS dependent on a subject, and built on a provisional understanding.  These things and a subject exist, but DO NOT inherently, independently exist.  They exist as applied patterns.  


> Ham:
> 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).

Marsha:
The way we provisionally know and interpret feelings has everything to do with the language used to define experience.


Your questions are always a challenge.  Many thanks...   


Marsha  
 
 

 
___