[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[Ham Priday]

Mark [Gav mentioned] --


In the course of our dialogue, in which I suggested that you review my
thesis and return with questions, you are providing Gav with what I can only
describe as a knee-jerk interpretation of my philosophy.  Since this is
likely to create confusion, I feel compelled to comment on some of the
conclusions you've drawn.


> I've been reading Ham's essay and it looks like he is
> constructing a Dualistic philosophy:

In fact, I have constructed a philosophy to explain how subject/object
dualism -- indeed all differentiation -- arises from an undifferentiated
source.

> Ham begins by insists Human experience is the very thing we must concern
> ourselves with if we are to escape the horrors of runaway technology.

My emphasis in the introduction was not on "human experience" as a concern
but on setting our sites by a more meaningful compass than technology.  What
I actually said was that "for a philosophy to set a new course for mankind,
it must encompass an understanding of the human position - especially with
regard to existential Freedom."  Understanding man's role as a free agent,
not his experience.

> He presents a scientific construct of experience and culture then rejects
it
> in favour of the abstracted something/nothingness found in all aspects of
> Human experience.

What you call "a scientific construct of experience" is plain old
epistemology.  I do not reject it because it accounts for man's knowledge of
objective reality.

> Ham tries to avoid infinite regress (subject can't be without object)
> by insisting nothingness does the work of generating the subject/object
> division  - but essence was there first.

There is no need for "infinite regress" when you start with an uncreated
source.  (Later, you'll see that space/time is defined as the "mode of human
experience".  It comes with the existential design.)

> Logically, this can be restated as the filling of Nothingness by something
> (essence), which means there can't be nothingness anyway. A serious flaw.

You've misunderstood the ontology.  Nothingness is the "root" of awareness;
awareness has no existence apart from its contents, the values that are
objectivized by the intellect.

> Thus, the basis for Ham's philosophy is not Essence
> even though he refers to his thought as essentialist.

Absolutely untrue.  Essentialism is founded on Essence and on the values
derived from Essence.  The entire philosophy is valuistic and Essence-based.

> Rather, he explicitly states that opposites are the basis of reality:
> Opposites, or complimentary poles are found in all Human experience
> and enquiry; he even cites electromagnetic polarity (tautologically) as
> an example while avoiding quark flavours of up, down, strange, charm, etc.

I use examples of polar opposites to illustrate contrariety.  This is an
important concept in understanding Cusan logic.  The point I'm leading to is
that all existence is differentiated, beginning with the individuated self.

> Any claim beyond that has to be deduced and the logic fails.

Deduction and logic are the working components of any hypothesis.

> It doesn't work for me.

That's too bad.  But, at least, you'll be leaving it with a correct
interpretation of the above concepts.

Regards,
Ham