[MD] Bitterness over Betterness

[Ham Priday]

Now calm down, Mark! --


> Hey Ham,
> Just came to this one.  Musta come in while I was doodling away.
> Just thought I would be obnoxious and jump right in.  See if I can
> rattle your cage a bit.

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> 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?
>
> [Mark unceremoniously butting in]
>
> No, I wouldn't say that, but I guess you already know that.
>
> Feeling good is ephemeral and eventually turns into feeling bad
> (what a drag huh?), although it takes a woman's beauty a while
> for that to happen (maybe I am a lesbian).  Yes, good must be
> used in relation to other things.  This is one way to describe
> Quality as Relationalism (I posted on that a while back), and
> not the Wiki variety.  I could go on the say that it is what lies
> between and separates, but that would only be to annoy you (heh, heh).
>
> [Ham continues]:
> 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.
>
> [Mark]
> Ineffable only means undefinable, Like "I got that Ineffable FEELING
> ..., everything's going my way".  OK, Ham.  Let's take a beautiful
> woman (I really must be a lesbian).  Now, we have your opinion on
> her, and we have her opinion on herself.  Which one is the Best
> (or Betterest) one?  You know that it is her own opinion.  So, if she
> is beautiful in her mind, is that not true?  Is what you believe True or
> False?  Sorry, this is a T/F test.

An opinion is neither true nor false.  It is a subjective conclusion usually 
made in the absence of objective evidence.  "Beauty is in the eye of the 
beholder," as the poet said.  If I pronounce a woman "beautiful", it's a 
judgment call I make on the basis of what is beautiful to me, relative to 
what is not.  If she looks in the mirror and opines that she is beautiful, 
her opinion is based on the aesthetic scale as she judges it.  As you say, 
it is not a True/False decision.

> Where do you think we GET concepts from, by the way?  We can't
> make them up, pull them out of a vacuum, pluck them from the stars,
> or pull them out of a hat.  We can only translate into Humaneze what is
> already there.  We cannot create something out of nothing, remember?

I don't consider valuistic appraisals "concepts".  A concept is an 
intellectualized scheme or paradigm for understanding/explaining how 
something works in accordance with logic or known (i.e., universal) 
principles.  Most concepts are rational conclusions intellectualized from 
experienced phenomena.  An aesthetic judgment is an expression of our 
proprietary psycho-emotional sensibility, no intellection or logic required.

[Ham]:
> ...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.

[Mark]:
> Well, I am glad that I am not lying on a couch telling you my
> problems.  Emotional/Intellectual state, now what exactly is that
> mouthful? ...

FYI, psycho-emotional sensibility determines our "emotional/intellectual 
state" of mind at any given time.

> Oh, in case you forgot, Goodness is not meaningless
> without us, it is always there.  It will still be around when we are
> gone, dead, late, departed, lifeless, defunct, extinct, no more,
> six feet under, pushing up daisies, seven steps to Heaven, bone
> house, sleep city, zombie zone, Hotel Morrison,  Elisian Fields,
> Endsville.  AM I CLEAR?

Hush!  (You'll wake the neighbors.)

It's obvious that this point is an Achilles Heel for you, Joe; but if 
goodness is "always there, without us", who is there to realize it? 
Goodness (or Value) is what we as sensible beings feel in relation to 
otherness.  As I told Joseph, "... just as there cannot be objects without a 
subject to experience them, we cannot value something without loving or 
wanting it."  What we feel, what we are sensible of, is rooted in the 
Self/Other dichotomy.  Essential value is our link to the Source.  WE make 
bring "goodness" into existence by measuring the value (of otherness) 
differentially.

Therefore -- Now hear this! -- Value doesn't exist without a sensible agent. 
It's the principle upon which our free choice is based.

Meditate upon it ... sleep on it ... you'll get it eventually, Mark.

Or I'm not essentially yours,
Ham


http://moq.org/md/archives.html