[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

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.

Mark: Hello Ham.
This was a response to Gav. I'm glad you have addressed it.
However, my posts directly addressed to you are ones i should very much  
appreciate a response to, if you would be so kind?

> 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.
 
Mark: I am not at all sure you have Ham.
I fully understand you think you have, but you are hiding behind  
suppositions which are not argued for.
Among these are:
1. Potentiality.
2. Causation.
3. Nothing.
All three are metaphysically unexplainable.
And yet, these are the tools you use to differentiate that which is  
undifferentiated.

> 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.

Ham: 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.
 
Mark: I beg your pardon Ham, i have jumped a step: Human experience  includes 
technology and freedom.
 
Ham: 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.
 
Mark: Thank you Ham.
Technology and freedom are experienced by Humans, that is to say, they are  
valued by Humans.
Some Humans value the freedom technology delivers.
Others feel technology stultifies freedom.
The Value comes first Ham and is directly experienced.
 
> 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.
 
Mark: You are relying on a causal relationship between objective reality  and 
our knowledge of it.
Hume dismantled causation in 'An essay concerning Human understanding.' We  
have no idea of causation.
Hume is regarded as an empiricist while you tend to a more rationalist view  
in my estimation.
You also acknowledge that each one of us has a proprietary awareness  of a 
solipsistic bent; a bent which has to be illuminated because of its  existential 
ramifications of pure freedom to do what we like.
You use the tried and trusted method of postulating a more fundamental  
source.
The novelty of your philosophy may lie in the way you derive  differentiation 
from the monism?
But you perform this with dubious reasoning and a dualistic philosophy  based 
on opposites: essence/nothingness.
Indeed, you appeal to Universal experience of opposites to justify it's  
basis in your reasoning.

> 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.

Ham: 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.)
 
Mark: You are relying on causation again Ham. The beginning of the causal  
chain is outside the causal chain as potentiality.
The potential is actualised by nothingness and nothingness, 'Carves out' as  
you put it, differentiation's.
But as i pointed out, there is no logical difference between this and  
stating, 'Essence fills in the differentiation's'.
Therefore, it is only terms such as 'potential' and 'capacity' and so on  
which provide logical priority.
If you direct you attention to terms such as, 'Potential' and 'capacity'  you 
will see that you are setting up a relation.
One may easily say, 'Nothingness has the capacity or potential to be  filled.'
You may as likely call yourself a, 'Nothingnist' as an  'essentialist.'
If you appeal to tradition for the priority of essence - 'essence simply is  
that which you say it is based on my philosophical tradition' - then you are  
also a conventionalist.

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

Ham: 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.
 
Mark: This ontology is well stated. But does it stand up to further  
philosophical scrutiny?
You cannot expect me to simply accept what i am told without looking  further 
into it can you Ham?
I like what i see when i look into your philosophy, but there are areas i  
should like to explore.
The statement, 'Nothingness is the "root" of awareness' is all well and  fine.
It's your argument for why this is so i have a problem with as i explained  
above.
1. You appeal to our experience of Universal opposites or  complimentaries.
2. You adopt this as a basis for you explanation of awareness; nothingness  
carves out differentiation's.
3. Essence is simply given priority for no argued reason.
I have challenged that priority and it would be good to hear what your  
response is Ham?

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

Ham: Absolutely untrue.  Essentialism is founded on  Essence and on the values
derived from Essence.  The entire philosophy  is valuistic and Essence-based.
 
Mark: What argument would you present to explain why Essence should be as  
fundamental as you state it to be?
I am wondering because now you are emphasising values as a base along with  
essence.
Is essence the same as value?
You've insisted they are not the same: essence is carved out by nothingness  
and only then do Human values come into play.
It's a bit much to insist that values are the basis of your philosophy then  
isn't it?
Essence and nothingness occupy that stage, with essence given an even more  
fundamental role than nothingness for no good reason.
If essence is an axiom of essentialism then you need another axiom to  
explain this axiom. Infinite regress.
Otherwise we only have your word for it.

> 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.

Ham: 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.
 
Mark: Is essence, being undifferentiated, outside of existence then  Ham?
Essence does not exist because all existence is differentiated.
I'm having a problem with this because nothing doesn't exist either.
So, that which is outside of existence (essence) is carved up by that which  
does not exist.

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

Ham: 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
 
Mark: I hope this isn't an invitation to leave?
There is allot about your philosophy i find most fascinating Ham. I love  the 
notion of essence being carved out by nothingness for example, but it's not  
sticking somehow. Yes, i agree that many aspects of experience are as valuable 
 as they are because nothing compliments something, but to place these as the 
 basis for a philosophy cannot prioritise one over the other: What you have  
identified is a philosophy of complimentary natures similar to I ching.
Great!
Love it.
You may have to modify your philosophy?
You may disagree?
Love,
Mark
 
Love,
Mark