[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

following...
 
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.

Ham: 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: This is a little unfair Ham and i wish to tell you why i feel this to  
be the case:
To begin at the end, Pirsig is not an anthropologist.
Pirsig examined the anthropological tradition to be sure, but he found it  
wanting.
Re: time and space. I agree that time and space are a mode of human  
experience.
I agree that that which shapes human experience is outside notions of time  
and space.
Re: Evolution. The MoQ regards evolution as a high quality intellectual  
pattern of value, and the MoQ employs evolution in its static aspect.
You're not challenging evolution are you Ham?
What is your position regarding evolution if i may ask?

Mark:
> The MoQ codification is Value. The good replaces  truth.
> Rationalist philosophies 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.

Ham: 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: Steady on Ham please?
The evil of the world is a lower form of good.
But the higher forms of good are morally superior Ham.
Yes, killing is a severe evil the MoQ does not entertain.
However, and i feel this is true, killing is a good from a very backward  
phase of evolutionary history.
At one time, at the time of the law of the jungle, killing was a  biological, 
and maybe a social good. After all, if one examines why people kill  in so 
many dreadful wars, it isn't for intellectual reasons is it? It comes down  to 
biology or social conflict, and these are forms of evil for the MoQ, which  
gives intellectual values moral priority.
The social conventions of those who kill in the name of social patterns  like 
religion must be challenged.

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.

Ham:  That's right.  Human beings are autonomous creatures with the freedom  
of
choice.
 
Mark: An area best left for another topic maybe?

> 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.

Ham: 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: I love Plato myself. I tend to be Platonic also.
Music and Plato hey?
We should be getting on pretty well?
Wait a moment. Adorno is a Platonist and i don't like him one bit.
Well, i like him one bit, but not lots of other bits.
Anyway, abstract definitions are within the intellectual realm of the MoQ  
and they are evolving in their own right toward DQ.
But intellectual experience is the latest realm of evolution, there are the  
social and biological also.
The point to remember is that pure empiricism is that of quality or value  
before the static patterns get a grip.
sq patterns are directly experienced and valued on aesthetic grounds within  
the aesthetic continuum.

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.

Ham: 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.
 
Mark: There may be hope, because creativity drops sq patterns and freedom  
floods in.
The trick is to maintain the best sq patterns while being open to DQ  change.
The MoQ is very careful to stress that everything new is not necessarily  the 
best.
The better patterns have to stand the test of time.
However, while sitting in that concert hall are at our most free when we  
merge with a Dynamic performance or activity.
The most Dynamic and free, and moral, are intellectual activities.
Music is, in my humble view, one of the most Dynamic activities humans  
participate in. Pure Joy.

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.

Ham: 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: I beg your pardon Ham.
>From my empiricist tradition view point Quality is experienced and you have  
just equated essence with Quality.

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?

Ham: 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).
 
Mark: But essence, the primary source, has, as part of its nature,  
potentiality of more than one differentiated type: If there is a negative  potential 
there must be that which gives negativity its meaning, i.e. the  contrast, 
positive. I'm having a problem understanding how the absolute,  immutable, 
potentiality can be reconciled with being a primary source?
It looks to me as if the primary source is in need of a primary  source?

Ham: 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
 
Mark: Well, i take what you say seriously and give your philosophy the  
attention it deserves.
If you ever publish your work in book form you may be asked to respond to  
more attentive people than me Ham?
Love,
Mark