[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

following...
 
> 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.

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

Mark:
> I take your point.   But it has been argued that metaphysics
> deals with definitions while  mystics like to avoid them.
> In this sense, the monist Quality of ZMM is  mystical and left alone.
> But the DQ of the Metaphysics of Quality is  part of a system.
> In this case, it's a bit like having the cake and  eating it.
> One may wish to see these two as complimentary?
> My  problem with potential is this: You can stuff all that is
> inconvenient  and problematic into the category of the potential.
> One version of could  say: 'This electron is doing what it is doing now,
> because the initial  potential teleological activated the Universe so that
> it would be doing  what it is doing now.' When you consider the
> electron in question may be  in the brain of Stephen Hawking it
> appears Stephen Hawking right down to  the atomic level was
> potentially 'there' before the Big Bang or  whatever.
> Which level of determinism do you subscribe to  Ham?

Ham: Not sure I subscribe to either.  Probably I'm closer to  the teleological
view -- for the dynamics of inanimate objects, at least.  

Mark: Come come Ham. Relativity and Quantum mechanics have been challenging  
Newtonian physics for some time now.
Surely we can't entertain the clockwork universe anymore?
 
Ham: But then,
according to your Master, experience creates these  things, doesn't it?  So
the dynamics and organization of a physical  universe come from you as much
as from any external reality.
 
Mark: If time and space are our way of filtering experience then it would  
seem you already agree we impose a large component to our understanding of  
reality? Do we share a master in this regard?
The dynamics and organisation of inorganic patterns, as the MoQ puts it,  are 
a set of value preferences. Quantum events do what they do because they  
value things that way. The MoQ says the same DQ toward which these patterns are  
migrating is the same for all sq patterns.

Mark:
> OK. Let's stay  with philosophy.
> You have posited a primary source.
> The primary  source is an essence with potential.
> Does this mean that the activating  of the potential follows
> a deterministic teleological path?

Ham:  "Deterministic and "teleological" are at cross purposes here, Mark.   
The
former has to do with probability and the laws of cause and effect,  the
latter with a cosmic design.  I opt for the latter.
 
Mark: Determinism and probability are in fact at cross purposes here.
Determinism is more in accord with laws of cause and effect.
Cosmic design implies a prearranged order with a determined  teleology.
As i thought, you are a determinist.

[snip]

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.

Ham: Have you reviewed Cusa's theory  of absolute potentiality and 
actualization?
According to the law of  Contradictory Identity, every existent is definable
both positively (in terms  of what it is) and negatively (in terms of what it
is not).  Cusa  theorized that Possibility and Actuality are co-dependent in
existence but  coincide in the non-contradictory Source, the "positive"
reality of which is  One and its "negative" manifestation divided.  (There is
more to my  ontology, but we can discuss that at another time.)
 
Mark: I understand.
If every existent can be defined in both + and - terms then the One can be  
defined as infinite division.
After all, you can't get any further from the unified One than an infinite  
division can you?
Infinite division is actualised.
But, if you can divide one thing into an infinite number of parts, there is  
no end to the division?
So, the full actualisation of an infinite number of never ending parts is  as 
damn near the one as makes no difference isn't it?
This looks a bit like a Menger sponge from chaos theory - a 3D cube with an  
infinite surface area.
Nice trick. Nice game. But that's what the intellectual level of the MoQ  
does: appreciate the aesthetic of abstract relationships.
The result of these abstractions are what you are taking to be ultimate  
reality, when it is the source of your aesthetic which is the source of  reality.

Mark:
> That's not a monism is it?
> Absolute  potential plus negative potential means dualism.
> How many more  potentialities does essence contain Ham?

Ham: Reality is manifested as a  dualism from the finite perspective of human
intellection.  Essentially,  it is absolute and immutable, which I suppose
qualifies as a "monism".
 
Mark: Not so by your own definition Ham. You have just told me, and not for  
the first time, that the One can be defined in both + and - terms. The one is  
also infinite division. That makes two aspect which is a Dualism.
If you wish to prioritise one, + or - over the other, and as each can be  
logically seen to be equal, what argument do you present for your  prioritisation?

Mark:
> You've just stated that essence is  infinite.
> Our postulations about it are finite but essence is  infinite.

Ham: Is there a law against hypothesizing an Infinite?   Let's call it 
Absolute,
then.  Actually, I prefer that term.
 
Mark: Both the One and Infinity are absolutes. So, now we have 2  absolutes.

> This is not turning out to be simple.

Ham: I  didn't promise you "simplicity".  But you are fighting me every step  
of
the way. I'd like to see you argue Pirsig's case.  He'd never have  been
able to get away with his Quality theory.
 
Mark: I do not wish to fight. I rather hope i have shown you i understand  
your philosophy to some degree?

Mark:
> A primary cause presumably  pushes creation  whereas
> migration may be seen as a dragging up or  pulling.
> This is Asymmetrical.  A cause generates that which  follows
> as the potential is actualised.  But migration does not  imply
> a first causal potentiality does it?

No.  Nor does  Pirsig's MoQ.  As I said before, Essence, like God, has no
beginning or  end.  It is uncreated and timeless.
 
Mark: Fair enough. But if this is so you can't define  it.

Mark:
> Like God?

Ham: Like our notion of the Creator,  whether you acknowledge this as God, 
Megog,
or the primary cause.
 
Mark: There is a crucial difference. Creator, God and Megog have social  
baggage.
Primary source is far more intellectual it seems to me and  preferable.

Mark:
Essence, as you delineate it is looking more like  God by the sentence Ham,
which i have to say worries me.

Ham: I seem  to be the cause of much of your worry.  I don't know what 
worries  you
about a common reference to God, unless you feel you are betraying Pirsig  by
acknowledging a transcendent source.  I never claimed to be an  atheist,
Mark.
 
Mark: I am worried by the social conflict terms like God are responsible  for.
Many people, primarily men, kill in order to defend their notion  of how they 
feel God should be viewed.
I am happy to note you may be using God as a metaphor for intellectual  
quality.

Mark:
> It worries me because we are drifting into the  Theological tradition and
> that gets pretty heavy.  But i may be  worrying unnecessarily.
> I'm not averse to contemplating the ins and outs  of what may constitute a
> primary source, so i will stick with you as a  fellow thinker.

Ham: Good.  I have generally tried to avoid  theological tradition, although 
I've
borrowed idea from visionaries like  Eckhart and the Neoplatonists who were
of course from that  tradition.

> As i hope to have convinced you Ham, i find your thought  fascinating
> and stimulating and bloody irritating all at the same  time!
> But that's part of the fun.  I applaud you for being enough  of a free
> thinker to state openly that employ axioms which may not be  amenable
> to proof.

As can also be said for Prsig's  philosophy.
 
Mark: Quality is not an axiom as i have tried to indicate for you. Quality  
is experienced.
You find some composer better quality than others.
You didn't need for this to be rationally qualified before you felt it had  
real meaning did you?
 
But I'm pleased you continue to
find Essentialism fascinating.   With any luck I may yet convince you of  its
rationality.

Regards,
Ham
 
Mark: I'm persuaded up to my eyeballs that essentialism is rational.
It is simply that i find rationality in need of modification before  
philosophy can be of better use to humanity Ham.
Love,
Mark