[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Greetings, Mark --

I don't believe we've talked before.

>  Hello Ham. I could not help butting in - i am attracted by your
>  arguments. May i ask a couple of questions of you please?
> Are the  following synonyms?
> 1. Consciousness as the primary source.
> 2.  The One, nonderivative Reality.
> 3. Root Consciousness.
> 4. The  Undifferentiated.
> (The MoQ calls the undifferentiated Dynamic  Quality.)
> So, Quality, Value and DQ are synonyms:
> 5. DQ.
>  6. Quality.
> 7. Value.

Ham: my answer is that 2, 4,  and
(possibly) 7 qualify as synonyms for what I call Essence.
 
Mark: Hello Ham. Thank you.
OK. Synonyms for Essence:
2. The One, nonderivative Reality.
4. The Undifferentiated.
7. Value (?)
All of the above are the basis of a monist philosophy.

Ham: Consciousness (1)
presupposes an object, as does Root  Consciousness (3), Quality (6), and -- 
depending on how you define it --  Value (7).
 
Mark: Quality, as is clearly stated in ZMM, is the basis of a monist  
philosophy.
Quality, 2, 4 and 7 are therefore all synonyms.
This is the MoQ position and you have every right to disagree with the MoQ  
if you wish Ham.
But, in MoQ terms, and as Essence is a synonym for 2,4,6 and 7, Essence is  
therefore a synonym for Quality.
Moving on to 1 and 3:
I can see that (self) consciousness may imply 'other' but i'm not sure  about 
root consciousness?
Pure undifferentiated consciousness is, by definition, lacking in  divisions.
 
Ham: In terms of Value I do not
recognize DQ as distinguishable from  SQ.
 
Mark: You are at liberty to hold your own opinions Ham.
However, The MoQ does distinguish DQ from sq: DQ is the One and sq is the  
many.
N.B. The many do not necessarily have to divide into subjects and  objects.
 
Ham: And I'm apprehensive about
defining Value as an absolute.  We  only know Value "differentially", as
experienced in finite phenomena.
 
Mark: Definitions belong to the many, while DQ is the One.
sq values belong to the many, Value as a synonym for DQ is the  One.

Ham: That would seem to eliminate your "expanded" list of  synonyms.
 
Mark: I am afraid not Ham. The expanded list still holds.
And you appear to have overlooked the fact that you agree, iff Essence is  
monistic.
(But it turns out to be a trinity below)

Mark:
> You theorise  that x.
> a. Is x a component of the theory or
> b. Is x outside the  theory?
> Ham from below: 'we are at the outer fringe of reality
>  when we try to describe Essence and its primary
> divisions in finite  terms.'
> If x is outside the theory, it is unconceptual and
>  therefore a synonym to be included with 1-9:

Assuming that x = Essence,  it is part of my theory.  However, I'm not sure
what you mean by  "unconceptual".  Even if it means "incomprehensible"  or
"inexperiencable", it can still be part of the theory.
 
Mark: Re: Unconceptual.
You stated that esthesis is, "a state of pure feeling characterized by the  
absence of conceptual and interpretational elements."
I am assuming the, 'Absence of conceptual elements' may be  termed 
unconceptual.
But Essence can't be conceptualised either, and yet you insist esthesis  must 
be a capacity possessed by essence.
Therefore your Essence is more than a monism, it is a dualism at  least.
If you wish to leave Essence, 'incomprehensible to the finite mind' then  you 
cannot state anything about it.
You certainly cannot suggest it has capacities.
If you identify Essence as the Prime mover; the first cause; then you are  
repeating Aristotle.
The MoQ does not suggest DQ is the Prime mover.
However, the MoQ suggests that sq is migrating toward DQ.
 
Ham: Essence is
incomprehensible to the finite mind.  Does that  place it "outside the
theory"?  Surely, there are many aspects to  Einstein's Theory of Relativity
that remain incomprehensible; yet it is  considered a valid theory.
 
Mark: I am not at all sure this is so Ham.
All aspects of Einstein's theories are self referencing as a set of logical  
relationships.
I do not believe there is a symbol for, 'that which cannot be accommodated  
by this set of logically self referencing relationships' in any of Einstein's  
theories?
I may be wrong.
 
Ham: If I
labeled my philosophy a "hypothesis" instead of a theory, (I  do in my
thesis) would it be more acceptable?
 
Mark: I don't think so Ham. You see, value is empirical. Value is  not a 
theory or hypothesis.
There are cultures other than our own which see this more clearly than we  
do, and an exploration of them and appreciation of them may help in this  regard?
Perhaps this is the root of the matter: The MoQ is empirical in nature  while 
your philosophy is heavy on theory/hypothesis.
There is a long and fine tradition of rationalist philosophy of which your  
contribution may be a valuable extension.
Rationalists view values as logical posits.
The MoQ belongs closer to the empiricist tradition and regards values as  
real as experience itself.

Ham: Let me be clear on my definitions for the  above:
The Primary Source [Essence] is the absolute, sensible One from  which
difference and all otherness are derived.  (It is logically  posited as the
"not-other".)
 
Mark: Here we go you see Ham? You're at it right from the 'get go.'

Ham: Existence is the experience of Essence differentiated by  nothingness.
 
Mark: And now, after the logical positing, we get to experience.
Very clear.
The MoQ puts this the other way around and begins with experience which  
generates logic.

Ham: Value is the (the individual's) psycho-somatic response to this  
experience.
 
Mark: And finally, experience is clearly placed in it's scientific context  
as a response in a brain.
The Moq again would place this in a mirror relationship to your own  Ham:
Experience - generates logic - generates scientific theory.
 
Mark:
> 1. Consciousness as the primary source.
> 2. The One,  nonderivative Reality.
> 3. Root Consciousness.
> 4. The  Undifferentiated.
> 5. DQ.
>
> 6. Quality.
> 7.  Value.
>
> 8. Essence. (replacing esthesia)
> 9. a state of  pure feeling characterized by the absence of conceptual and
>  interpretational elements.
> Esthesia divides into Human experience:  Sensibility - subjectivity which
has
> an objective content.

If  I follow your number scheme correctly, only 2, 4, 8, and 9  (with
reservations)are valid for me.  I reject Consciousness and Value  as synonyms
for Essence because they are relative to proprietary  awareness.
 
Mark: This was sorted out above.
I'm not sure what proprietary awareness is Ham?
 
I also
prefer the term "awareness" for differentiated cognizance,  reserving
"Sensibility" for the perception of value or the "esthesis" of  Essence, as I
explained to Platt.
 
Mark: I do not think this makes any sense even by your own lights as i  
explain above.

Mark:
> Subjectivity is privileged over the  objective:
> Ham from below: 'the awareness potential of "selfness"  may  not require an
> objective referent.'
> Thus, selfness can  differentiate without an objective referent.
> Therefore, selfness is a  differentiation of 1-9 without subject or object.
> This is very close to  the MoQ position which replaces som with a DQ/sq
> division.

Ham:  One correction: Only Value can be differentiated by the self without  an
objective referent.
 
Mark: As we have seen, the MoQ and Essentialism follow different  traditions:
Essentialism appears to be rationalistic in that it is all logically  posited.
The MoQ begins with experience which leads to logic.

Mark:
>  Quality and Value are synonyms Ham.
> Therefore, esthesia and value are  synonyms.
> This is going to become important:

Yes, I am quite  aware of my difference with official MoQ doctrine.  But the
difference  is more than a choice of terms.
 
Mark: I feel the difference lies in philosophical tradition Ham.
More follows...