[MD] The reification issue completely misunderstood

[Ham Priday]

Good evening Mark and Joe --

Since we seem to be drawn into a three-way conversation on these topics, I 
might as well try to kill two birds with one stone.

On 6/8/11 4:43 PM, "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Joe,
> The dynamic does not manifest, it IS.

IF "the dynamic" is what I call Absolute Essence, then this is probably the 
single statement in your dialogue that I concur with.  What "manifests" is 
its Value, which you folks call "Quality".  And Value is manifested by the 
sensible agent (individual self) as a relational world of otherness.

On 6/9/11 at 4:27 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> replied:

> I suppose there can be an unmanifest dynamic, but then
> how would I know?
>
> Words are useless in terms of the dynamic as you have
> correctly pointed out.  If you take away words and the
> sense of other, you are left with DQ. This is where we
> live most of the time. It is only in a societal function that
> we live in sq.

Mark then responded:

> I don't agree with your view of view DQ. I prefer to leave it
> indefinable!  In that way I don't have to compare it to words.
> I'm not clear on what you mean by a 'societal function'.

I'm not either.  In fact, I don't understand Mark's assertion (below) that 
"without the societal level, we do not have a concept of self.".  I know 
this reflects the MoQ view, and Mark explains the concept of self as 
"comparing ourselves to another," but certainly I don't need another person, 
much less a "societal level", to convince me that I am the knowing self of 
my world.  All "knowing" is proprietary to the self.  I don't look at myself 
as an object but as the cognizant subject of otherness.  And so do you.

Mark continues:
> I called [DQ] ineffable since there are not enough words to
> describe it.  Undefinable means something else to me, and is
> itself a definition (like ineffable).  I do not like defining
> something as undefinable.
>
> In terms of the societal level, I am making use of the different
> levels in MoQ to explain much of our reality.  Without the
> societal level, we do not have a concept of self.  This is because
> we cannot compare ourselves to another.  Words are used by
> the societal level to package thought in incomplete utterances
> which are then received by the listener.  This is a form of
> static quality.  Outside of the societal level, we live in dynamic 
> quality.

Why do we need a societal level to give us a concept of selfness?  Our 
experience of  inorganic objects tells us we are not stones or streams. 
>From biological experience we learn that we're not worms, mice, or trees. 
And as all experience is the appearance of otherness, only thoughts and 
feelings give us the identity that defiines our conscious self.

While the biological level enables us to exist as beings, and society 
supports our identity as human beings, cognizant sensibility is the essence 
of our existence.  For without it, there would be no other.

Essentially speaking,
Ham