[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[Ham Priday]

Mark --

I'm trying hard to understand the point of your argument.  It would seem to
be based on fundamental logic, and the fact that I have made some
assumptions.  Frankly, I don't see that I have violated any logical
principles; perhaps you can point them out to me.

> But Ham, Quality is not postulated. Quality is experienced
> and as such is fundamental to Human life.

To me, that's an assumption.

> If you restrict yourself to the analytical then you are not
> going to address the major concerns you express in your essay.

I choose not to "restrict myself".  I use an analytical approach where the
subject matter calls for it; I use analogies or metaphors where logical
analysis doesn't apply or suffice.  My aim to use whatever means are at hand
to communicate my concepts.

> DQ and sq are experienced differently.
> sq is the known and dead in a creative sense while
> DQ is always new.

I don't know what this means.

I said:

> Quality has no potentiality to actuate except for evoking
> the  subject's response to it. This is why I say Quality cannot
> logically be theorized as the source of creation.

 Mark:
> But you have just stated, 'x has no potential except y potential'.

In this example, it is the subject that has the potential.  WE respond to
the quality or value perceived.  Value is only passive in evoking our
(active) response.

> Anything less than [mystical] is metaphysical, and even then
> logic can't cope with them.  If  you insist you are saying
> something then you are pushing back to a further stage which
> would have to be 'potentialism' or something like that.

Why is the "metaphysical" less than the "mystical"?   It's just another
approach to understanding reality.

> I'm saying the conceptual is defined, pure sensation, or
> awareness is experienced as undefined.  God is fathomed
> very well in most religions by the way Ham. Faith is largely
> a matter of clinging to a set of sq patterns, not DQ.

I don't know anyone who can explain the nature and dynamics of God.
We take it "on faith" not reason.  We accept the fact that understanding the
Creator is beyond human reasoning.  I am trying to posit a Primary Source
insofar as it can be based on logic, reason and intuition.  I try to support
it any way I can.

Ham said:
> There is nothing wrong with this logic, provided that it
> refers to absolute potentiality.

Mark:
> Fine. Then what you have is absolute potentiality as a monism.
> And like your essence/nothing position, the absolute potential
> is the same as saying absolute non-actualised. They are logically
> the same. But if all is potential there can be no actual.

Right.  Obviously some potentiality of Essence accounts for the
actualization we call existence.  I maintain that it is the actualization of
Difference, which amounts to God saying, "I deny."  This is a negation -- 
the negative potential of Essence.  What does Essence negate?  Let's say, it
negates "otherness".  Then, for Essence, there is no "other".  God is the
not-other.  And -- presto -- we have Difference.
Mark:
> But essence is a postulation and is therefore finite.
> How can the finite define the infinite?  It can't.

The finite doesn't have to define the infinite.  The infinite defines (i.e.,
dilineates or differentiates) finitude, and it becomes our existence..

Mark:
> A primary cause presumably pushes creation whereas
> migration may be seen as a dragging up or pulling.
> This is Asymetrical.  A cause generates that which follows
> as the potential is actualised.  But migration does not imply
> a first cuasal potentiality does it?  Migration, and this is very
> Plotinian, is a coalescing of differentiations reaching toward
> an undefined end.  Perhaps the beginning was pure chaos
> in the MoQ?

Essence, like God, has no beginning or end.  It is uncreated and timeless.
Yes, this is an "assumption", a "given" that I can't prove.  If you reject
the idea of a primary source I've lost you at the git-go.

Ham:
> Only biological evolution has demonstrated the capacity
> to move toward a higher state of organic complexity.
> This tells us nothing about the inorganic universe, the comos
> as a whole, or man's role in  it.

 Mark:
> Really Ham? Well, if you begin with Man that may very well
> be one such conclusion.  But, 'man' is a concept and concepts
> are part of the MoQ evolutionary history.

Everything is a "concept" in the sense you are using it.  But so what?
Things and values exist for us.  That's what's important.  The fact that
they are "evolutionary history" means nothing to me.  Evolution is a linear
notion of reality based on the passage of time.  Time and space are the mode
of human experience (intellectual understanding).  They don't affect the
uncreated Source whose reality is timeless (eternal) and immutable.  Some of
this evolutionary nonsense was inspired by Prisig who, you remember, started
out as an anthropologist.  Since anthropology is historically based, he
wasn't able to shake off the evolutionary aspects of his
QualityLand universe.

Mark:
> The MoQ codification is Value. The good replaces truth.
> Rationalist philosohies are nothing without truth; anything said
> has to be true and able to be demonstrated as so.
> The only way they can do this is to begin with axioms, and
> axioms are simply unchallenged conventions.
> The MoQ says truth is a species of a higher source: The good.
> The good isn't a convention because everyone knows what is good.

More nonsense.  Everybody has his own "good".  The islamic terrorist blows
himself up for his good.  Well, I guess "some things are better than
others."

 Mark:
> You challenge this in your own essay don't you?
> You provide examples which state that the objective universe
> depends on how we decide we like it to be.
> It is us who generate our universe.
> Our universe is us.
> Your runaway technology warning stresses that we should
> be in control not the notion that out-there is going to tell us
> how things are.

That's right.  Human beings are autonomous creatures with the freedom of
choice.

> Mark:
> Pirsig does not insist that pure empiricism is anything
> which can be defined.  Why should experience be defined?
> This implies that definitions are prior to experience, which
> is rather Platonic.

I tend to be rather Platonic.  If empiricism is what we directly experience,
why shouldn't we define it?  At least we should know what it is.

Mark:
> The MoQ position suggests that pure empirical experience
> is filtered by our own sq patterning. It can't be helped because
> our stable finite selves are shaped by evolution.  Part of that
> evolutionary process is a passing phase which has it that
> there are subjects and objects. But intellect cannot maintain
> this position in a fluid process ontology. You say i am not
> interested in ontology Ham? Quite the reverse, my interest is
> concerned with what a process - non-essence - value based
> ontology would be like.

I suggest that we're going to be in this "passive phase" for a very long
time -- as long as we are sentient human beings anyway.

Ham:
> Essentially we all begin with experience, whether as scientists,
> philosophers, or ordinary  observers.

 Mark:
> This is a bit rich Ham, because now you have placed
> experience at the centre of your essence.
> I do not recall you stating this before.
> You have just stated that experience is prior to essence.

No I did not.  How do you arrive at that conclusion?  I agree with Pirsig
that the Primary Source (Quality or Essence) must precede existential
experience.  Those who don't believe this are existentialists.

Mark:
> By the way, existentialists also begin with some
> preconceptions about pure experience when they sit down
> and try to write about it. The MoQ does say a few things
> about DQ which perhaps it should not, like, DQ is always new.
> But the always new can be a disaster as well as a move forward,
> so this may not be saying all that much?

The Primary Source does not itself move or "push forward".  It is immutable.
Change and movement arise from Difference -- the primary actualization of
Essence (see above).

May I suggest that we strive for brevity here?  Your successive messages are
so lengthy, I'm finding it difficult to respond to all your questions in a
single post.  One topic at a time would be preferable.

Thanks, Mark.

Regards,
Ham