[MD] Pressed Ham

[Ham Priday]

Jos -- [Continuation of my last message, posted prematurely]

THE 10 POINTS:

Ham, previously:
> 1.  I consider the aim of Philosophy to be an unbiased quest
>      for the true nature of reality and man's role in it.

Jos:
> I consider philosophy to be a name adopted by a diverse group for any
> activity considered to be a probing of the nature of being, I don't see
> necessarily this to relate to man's role. Science IMO is a form of
> philosophy working within a highly specialised set of rules.

"Any activity considered to be a probing of the nature of being" is too
inclusive for me.  It would include virtually all of the sciences, and
arguably the humanities as well.  Conversely, "nature of being" may be too
limiting -- especially if the philosopher posits a primary essence that is
not being.

> 2.  The primary source is an Absolute Essence that is
>       incapable of human description but whose value is
>       experienced differentially.

Jos:
> I can name all things in one language, thus all things are described by
> one ubiquitous data type encompassing all subjects, objects and
nothingness
> inbetween. The data must be describing something (as my view is primarily
> a materialist mystic monism) so I'm looking for a lowest common
denominator
> or source from which all stems. This source or "material that underpins
> the data" can be considered analogous to the Pirsigian undefined concept
of
> non-relative value or to Ham's Essence.

I have no problem with that.

> 3.  Physical existence is actualized (by the negation of Essence)
>      as a dichotomy: subjective awareness and objective otherness.
>      Metaphysically, awareness is nothingness; otherness is an
>      insensible essent.  The interaction of these contingencies
>      creates "being-aware".

Jos:
> Existence is the pimary patterning of unpatterned source
> "material that underpins the "data"". If we choose a good name
> for this source to be value then:
> Prior to patterning opposite values are infinitely divided and
> thus dynamic, approximately equal, and co-incident.
> In patterning an intersection of values occurs creating a
> realtively fixed reference point or a "static value".
> If we choose another naming system for the "material that
> underpins the data" a different anaolgy will make more sense,
> but both will mean the same thing in absoulute terms. Both
> Objective and Subjective descriptions can be valid for any
> given pattern of MTUTD, but no S or O description can be
> valid for the material its-self.

I'm afraid you've lost me here.  I think this approach to understanding is
overly dependent on methodology and terms as opposed to concepts.  Thus,
whatever fits the pattern "works".  You can complete the puzzle in a variety
of ways as long as the elements are consistent with the design.  That may
bear no relation to the actual truth you are searching for.


> 4.  The individual (self) is separated from Essence and all
>      finite entities by nothingness.  (This affords the autonomy
>      required for free choice.)

Jos:
> The individual is not separated from essence, I see no obvious
> evidence for free choice and so don't assume it to be a given,
> also to me "free choice" assumes cause/effect relationships
> which I also don't assume to be a given.

You don't know this, Jos; so you have no basis on which to deny my premise.
That man is free to choose his actions without relying on instinct
(bio-genetic behavior patterns) is universally demonstrable.  Causal
relationships only apply after the fact (post-facto) and do not refute the
self-determinancy principle.

> 5.  All awareness (experience of other) is proprietary to the
>      individual, as are intellect, concepts, ideas, feelings, desires,
>      and recollections.

Jos:
> There can be a single word used for an analogy describing
> the pattern that is any interraction of one static pattern with another.
> The complexity of the patterns determines how the nature of the
> interraction is manifest.  The word "cognizance" is a good
> analogy for the interactions of  "the individual" (high level
> pattern/human/TBC) with other patterns. "Awareness" is a good
> word to describe interractions at lower levels, at further lower
> levels of complexity "experience" is a good word and ultimately
> "interraction" can represent all that may be left out of the
> range of the other words.

I bow to your greater understanding of "patterns", and will accept
"cognizance" in place of "awareness" wherever you deem it to be the better
word.  However, I do not accept the theory that intellect, concepts, ideas,
feelings, desires, and
recollections exist apart from the individual's consciousness.

>  6.  Space/time is the mode of human experience.  (Essence is
>       not bound by, nor can it be described by, evolutionary
>       process or the dimensions of finitude.)

Jose:
> I agree but don't see this as a fundamental point. (I take the
> veiw of Kurt Vonnegut's Tralfalmadorians in "the sirens of titan",
> you'll understand it better by reading it than if I try to define it now.)

It is a point often raised in these discussions.  For example: Who or what
created Essence?

>  7.  Although Value represents Essence to the finite awareness,
>       and is the individual's true essence, it is not a contingency
>       but resides in the Oneness of Essence.

Jos:
> I would use other words to say this:
> Essence is not described by the belief, but the belief is in the
> Essence, or, the believer doesn't know what he believes in.

Essence has no need for "beliefs" or "ideas".  Unless you use these terms in
the historical-cultural sense, such as "the general body of knowledge", it
is a fallacy to regard Intellect as residing in some extra-corporeal realm

>  8.  Truth, value, quality, morality, beauty, justice, goodness
>       and evil are all relative to the individual subject, despite
>       having universally accepted norms or empirical standards.

Jos:
> If one decides to use these words as analogy labels for
> various absolute concepts they can provide a framework
> to relate all things back to the source. This usage is distinct
> from individual usages or empirical standards. Confusion
> will only be removed if we create new words that don't
> already have existing connotations.

Since the infinite "source" is indescribable in finite terms, such terms or
analogies cannot be related to the source.  Essence is absolute, hence
contains no concepts or other relational factors.

>  9.  The physical world is an anthropomorphic system in which
>       man is the self-deterministic agent that shapes its reality.

Jos:
> The "physical world" is a subjective analogy for a tenacious
>  pattern of static values, where "Subjective" and "analogy" are
> deriviatives of cognizance (from above usage).

No matter how you "pattern" it, every differentiated thing, thought or value
is derivative of Essence, including Subject and Object.

>  10. The purpose of life is to develop and nurture the
>        value-sensibility granted to every individual and to
>        respect the freedom and sensibility of one's fellow creatures.

Jos:
> The analogy label for which "purpose" is used in this context
> has not been sufficiently well described for me to know what
> underlying concept it represents.

I understand that all of the above points require development and
elaboration.  This I have done in my website.  I'm only asking now how
objectionable they are to the MoQ loyalists; that is, whether I'm breaking
the rules of this forum by introducing them.

I very much appreciate your comments, Jos.  You have replied as I requested,
and all that remains to be determined is whether it is unethical to present
these concepts to the MD participants.  DMB says, "I think there is
something
ethically dubious about pushing such a decidedly un-Pirsigian system here."

Thanks for your "insider's" analysis.  (Sorry I pushed the SEND instead of
the SAVE button the last time around.)

Regards,
Ham