[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[Ham Priday]

Mark --

As philosopher who puts little stock in the time continuum, I hope you will
indulge me if I respond to your comments in reverse.  I've learned that
writers often make their most poignant statements at the end of their
epistles, and I think it will be more productive to work backwards in this
case (your two last messages).

[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.

I hope that's true, and will take you at your word.  Therefore, according to
your assertion, our purpose here is to make whatever modifications are
deemed necessary to make Essentialism "of better use to humanity."  I'm all
for that, since I've been asked more than once "what can you do with it?"

I also hope I've allayed some of your worry about becoming "theological".  I
know that MoQers have an obsessive aversion to theism and wouldn't want to
be perceived as pushing it.  However, you must also realize that the Essence
I'm trying to define transcends the differentiation that makes logic and
numerality workable in the finite world.  What we need is a "new" logic, one
that will make sense in the context of an inexperiencable and indefinable
source.  Cusan logic has given us a start toward that end.

Now I'd like to address the long commentary in your second note comparing
mysticism, teleology, and determinism as related to evolution.  As I am not
an evolutionist in the Pirsigian sense, I take exception to some of your
statements.

For example:

> ... 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.

I would describe Mysticism as a psychological adaptation to a metaphysical
perspective (e.g., 'The Way'), which is accepted on faith.  It's akin to the
practice of religion without dogmatic canons to structure it.  As such,
definitions aren't needed.  Metaphysics, on the other hand, began as a
scientific inquiry as to the nature of Reality, and has largely been
displaced by logical positivism.  Definitions are critical because the
ontologies are typically articulated in special terms, and comparative
analysis generally follows.

> 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.

Any ontology should be a complete system.  "Part of a system" doesn't really
cut it.  It's fairly easy to introduce a trendy new concept to the public,
and then say, "that's the general idea; I can't really define it.  But see
how far you can extend it."  To me, THAT is "having the cake and eating it."

> My problem with potential is this: You can stuff all that is
> inconvenient and problematic into the category of the potential.
> One version 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?

Your examples introduce too many ideas, all of which are problematic.  I
understand that you feel I'm fudging the logic by glossing over the
specifics in
my Creation ontology.  At the "cutting edge of Reality", perfect clarity is
difficult, and admittedly my "intuitive vision" is not always what it should
be.  Can we work on that?  For some time I have felt a need to simplify this
thesis.  If I was sure that you and I were really "on the same page", it
would ease my burden.

Now as to your comparison of Newtonian physics with Quantum Mechanics, I
must confess to only lately grasping what the fuss is all about.  They
didn't teach Quantum Physics in my pre-med courses, and I probably learned
more from Pirsig's SODV paper than from any more authoritative source.

My understanding is that when you probe into the micro-world of atoms and
quarks, you begin to lose track of the parameters by which macro-phenomena
are quantified and measured.  As a consequence, nuclear physicists are not
quite sure whether the fundamental unit of matter is a particle or an energy
wave.  So they've compromised by talking only about the statistical data of
their research, leaving aside the properties (location and/or velocity) of
the phenomena.  In other words, they're willing to fudge on their
conclusions in order to get meaningful data.  Am I anywhere close to
outlining the problem, Mark?  They also tell us that observing the
phenomenon affects its behavior or outcome; and this I don't understand.

Now that you know the paucity of my knowledge in this area, and the fact
that I don't rely on Science to unravel the mystery of Creation or primary
cause, kindly explain why you were displeased with my choice of Teleology as
driver (pusher or puller) in evolution.

You said:
> 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?

Have we ever had a clockwork universe?  Was it wound up by the Creator and
left to run on its own mainspring?   You see, I don't think of Creation as a
Big Bang that occurred 14 billion years ago; I think of it as a mode of
Essence -- a constant principle that is designed into the cosmos. And, I'm
sorry, but it isn't "a set of value preferences" choosing the outcome.  If,
indeed, we can speak of a value involvement in Creation, it's the value of
the Creator, not its actualized "essents".

> Quantum events do what they do because they
> value things that way.

I'm not blaming you, because I know where the idea originates.  But do you
realize how unscientific, illogical, and absurd that assertion is?

I'll get to your previous message tomorrow, if I find the time.  (We may
have made some progress, but we're not on the same page yet.)

Best regards,
Ham