[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Following on...
 
Ham: Let me ask you this, Mark: If
Quality (or Value) is relative to the  experiencing subject, how can Esthesia
be absolute and non-derivative as a  synonym?
 
Mark: Only sq is relative. Quality (DQ) is undifferentiated.
If esthesia IS relative, which you do indeed state, then it can't be  
undifferentiated.
That's why i knocked it out of the synonym list and replaced it with  essence.
 
Ham: You avoided naming Essence,
which I assume you regard as a synonym  for Quality.
 
Mark: I placed essence in the list of synonyms along with Quality as you  
read above.
I have negated the need for assumptions in this regard.
 
Ham: So I'll rephrase the
question: How can Quality be both absolute  (DQ) and derivative (SQ)?
 
Mark: Like this: Quality As pure empirical experience.
DQ is a metaphysical term for that which lies outside sq patterns of old  
experience, ideas, memory, DNA, atoms.
 
Ham: Or,
as a logical premise, how can Quality (or Value) be the SOURCE  of anything?
 
Mark: Note the conflicting traditions again Ham? Logic has a hard time  
dealing with anything that cannot be defined.
I do not think a monism - no matter what you call it - can be shown to be a  
source of anything as you say, without introducing terms, as Aristotle and  
followers of this tradition do, like: cause, capacity, potential, etc. Once you  
start down that road, and we've had 2,000 years of it, you end up with the  
extremely subtle and convoluted Theological reasoning as to why God can't be  
evil and stuff like that. Absolutely ruthless in it's uselessness.
 
Ham: My dispute with Pirsig isn't about choosing Quality over Value, it's  
that he
posits an esthetic reality without a source.
 
Mark: And here you land smack bang in an area of great interest for me Ham,  
and RP too!
Because the aesthetic (British spelling, sorry, force of habit) IS a  
response to the Monism when the differentiation's of our make up dissolve into  the 
One.
The Monism Quality (or synonym Value) is actually an aesthetic continuum.  We 
live in an aesthetic continuum. There is nothing but the aesthetic continuum  
Ham. The aesthetic continuum in it's most pure form is the One, Quality. That 
is  what the MoQ is saying.
All reality is an aesthetic continuum Ham.
Perhaps this is why you can't see the source? To see is to experience,  hence 
the empirical nature of the MoQ.
If you try to rationally posit and then derive logical relationships about  
these things then it can be easily shown to be crazy.
As i said, we've had 2,000 years of it and look where it has got  to?

Ham said:
> Value, even though experienced differentially, is  directly
> derived  from Essence, and MAY fill the void of  nothingness
> that I call the awareness potential of "selfness"  without
> requiring an objective referent.

Mark:
> This can  be unpacked as following:
> Sensibility distinguishes (undifferentiated)  value
> from (differentiated) value.
> The MoQ has 2 terms: DQ and  sq.
> You have 3 terms: That which is sensible, The undifferentiated,  The
> differentiated.

That is correct.  I have three terms;  but they are One in Essence.
 
Mark: Then your Essence has now flowered into a trinity ham.
Again, there is a fine tradition of philosophical trinities.
The MoQ remains Monistic.

Mark:
> Yes i see.
> There is  something, as yet unaccounted for, but which
> is denoted as 'Nothingness'  or 'the awareness potential
> of selfness' which:
> a. Is sensible  of differentiation's.
> b. Realises differentiation's.
> (At this  point i wish to emphasise that, 'Nothingness' is
> a synonym for 1-9 +  esthesia.)
> Were does the 'Potential' stand in relation to the
>  undifferentiated and the differentiated Ham?

Ham: Nothingness is  introduced by the negation of Essence.  It is the
differentiator of all  existents.  It is also the primordial subject
(negate).  That is, I  maintain that pure awareness -- the potential for
cognizance -- is  nothingness.  To be aware is to fill this nothingness with
objective  experience.
 
Mark: I'm having a problem following this, and i need to read your theory  in 
whole.
It's a very interesting logical construct. Using nothingness as a negation  
is all well and fine.
However, it's been done before and in the Rationalist tradition.
The MoQ is more aligned with the empirical tradition.

Mark:
>  I am reading this as follows: The potential realises and
> is sensible of  differentiation's.
> We seem to be dealing with causation  here?

Yes, Causation in the sense of Creation.
 
Mark: I'm glad i have been able to get some sort of grip on your philosophy  
Ham.
I am trying!

Mark:
> The MoQ replaces cause with  Value:
> 'In the Metaphysics of Quality "causation" is a
>  metaphysical term that can be replaced by "value".
> To say that "A causes  B" or to say that "B values
> precondition A" is to say the same  thing.
> The difference is one of words only.' (Lila. Chapter  8.)

Ham: I can accept Pirsig's general premise, but not as a time  sequence.
I would say that sensibility to value is the cause of intellection  (i.e.,
creating the appearance of finite beingness that represents the  particular
values sensed.)
 
Mark: Well, temporal sequencing is amenable to logical enquiry especially  
with regard to causation.
However that may be, you have made a mistake here Ham:
'I would say that sensibility to value is the cause of intellection'
But as i tried to indicate by the Lila quote, there is no scientific or  
logical change if the term 'cause' is replaced by the term 'value.'
So, you have just said, 'I would say that sensibility to cause is  the cause 
of intellection' or 'I would say that sensibility to value is  the value of 
intellection .'
It is the term value to which i was trying to draw your attension.

Ham said:
> As you see, we (Platt and Ham) are at the outer  fringe
> -- or, to use Pirsig's expression, the "cutting edge" -- 
>  of reality when we try to describe Essence and its
> primary divisions in  finite terms.

Mark:
> I think this clearly places Essence in the  list of
> synonyms Ham.  **

I looked for a reference to your  asterisks, but there were none.  You'll
have to explain how you arrive  at this conclusion, Mark.
 
Mark: I must have had something in mind i then forgot  Ham.

Ham:
>I feel safe in using Cusa's "not-other" as a  logical
> expression for Essence;

Mark:
> But Logic is  conceptual Ham. The only logical system
> i know which may express, 'not  other' is the tetralemma.

You are referring to the logic of contradictory  identity. Nicholas of Cusa
(15th c.) used it as the basis for his "not-other"  principle.  Check out how
I used his logic in the Creation section (#3)  of my thesis at
www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm .
 
Mark: Will do. Cusa of the rationalist tradition?

Ham:
> I am  not that secure in defining the metaphysical nature
> of proprietary  awareness and the primary (undifferentiated)
> object of that  awareness.

Mark:
> But you've give it a good go? You should be  applauded for that.

I don't hear any applause, do  you?

Mark:
> I'm not sure you can get away with this Ham, but it's  a bold try.
> I wonder if you are aware of the existential  ramifications?

Thanks, Mark.  Not sure of what you mean by  "existential" ramifications.
I'm certainly aware of the MoQ ramifications,  and I won't get away from
them.
 
Mark: Existentialists like Sartre begin with Nothingness which then  
generates values and it struck me that you may have sympathy with this  view?


>Mark: I am wondering how the individual is  constructed
> from your own philosophy Ham?

I suggest that you read  the complete thesis, then get back to me with your
questions.  For your  analytical mind, there will be many.

Your interest and comments on this  subject are much appreciated, Mark.

Essentially yours,
Ham
 
Mark: Allot of reading ahead. I have tackled these initial responses of  
yours because i think the two traditions view: Rationalist and Empirical have a  
problem talking to each other. But we are up to the challenge i hope?
Love,
Mark