[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

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: Hello Ham.
I had already made it abundantly clear that i regarded your  philosophy to be 
within the rationalist tradition.
So, there really is no point in your hoping i would regard  essentialism as 
rational is there?
I already do!

[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.

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?"
 
Mark: I did not say that Ham. I said Rationality itself needs  modifying:
'Our current modes of rationality are not moving society forward into a  
better world. They are taking it further and further from that better world.  
Since the Renaissance these modes have worked. As long as the need for food,  
clothing and shelter is dominant they will continue to work. But now that for  
huge masses of people these needs no longer overwhelm everything else, the whole  
structure of reason, handed down to us from ancient times, is no longer  
adequate. It begins to be seen for what it really is...emotionally hollow,  
esthetically meaningless and spiritually empty. That, today, is where it is at,  and 
will continue to be at for a long time to come.' (ZMM ch. 10)
'Now I want to show that that classic pattern of rationality can be  
tremendously improved, expanded and made far more effective through the formal  
recognition of Quality in its operation.' (ZMM ch. 24)
Rationality can be modified when it is recognised that rationality is an  
aesthetic, an art.
And Quality is the aim of art.


Ham: 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.
 
Mark: A low quality feeling about theism may be a better way of putting  it.
The source you need is Quality.

Ham: 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.
 
Mark: You've just agreed with what i said Ham. One thing though, the way is  
experienced not taken on faith.
The way is not a religion.

> 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."
 
Mark: Systems generate systems.
If the system is problematic then systems full stop need addressing.
DQ addresses the problem of systems by introducing a, 'formal  recognition of 
Quality in (their) operation.'
 
> 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.
 
Mark: I'm always willing to help.
The introduction of Quality into your logic would help you simplify things  i 
think.
If you turned logic into an aesthetic - an art form in its own right and  
stopped using it to describe pre-intellectual reality i would be  happy.

Ham: 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.
 
Mark: It can't be easy for a physicist to accept uncertainty as a  
fundamental aspect of what they study.
Einstein said, 'God does not play dice.' He hated the direction in which  
physics was heading.
But that's way it looked and still looks.
Rather pleasingly, the MoQ, by suggesting particles value their behaviour,  
introduces sense where daftness reigned.

Ham: 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.
 
Mark: I will try.
It sounds counterintuitive for us to talk about a 'final cause' because the  
four causes of Aristotle have been shaved down to 2 by science.
But there was  once a 'final cause' and it is teleology.
Potential is converted into the actual and the actual aims at the final  
cause.
The final cause was 'there' in full potential at the beginning and is  
therefore termed a cause.
In other words, teleology is a Grand Design.
It is an important aspect of many philosophical positions and i wanted to  
know how you stood on the matter.
Because if quantum mechanics has put the blocks on a Grand Design then  final 
cause goes out the window too.
This has implications for your philosophy: Can you build uncertainty into  
your system?
Do you want to?
Would you rather not?
 

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?

Ham: Have we ever had a  clockwork universe?  Was it wound up by the Creator 
and
left to run on  its own mainspring?
 
Mark: Newton thought so. didn't last long.
 
Ham: 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".
 
Mark: This is interesting.
Creation is 'designed' into the Cosmos.
Therefore, created essents can be explained.
This is determinism - it's all pre-planned and capable of being  explained.
Scientists will be delighted and Einstein can rest easy.

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

Ham: I'm not blaming you, because I know where the idea  originates.  But do 
you
realize how unscientific, illogical, and absurd  that assertion is?
 
Mark: OK Ham, now please hold on a mo?
You may contemplate that which science may or may not regard as illogical  
and absurd and have a giggle about it, but where do scientists get their ideas  
from in the first place? What has science to say about Human creativity? Can  
Human creativity be placed under a microscope and analysed?
Science is the product of Human creative thought.
It's a creative suggestion to regard values as the fundamental simples of  
reality Ham. No needles or dials are suddenly going to behave differently  
because we modify our paradigm.

Ham: 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

Mark: The bottom line is very simple:
You place intellectual constructs before values.
The MoQ places values before intellectual constructs.
How's that for a final poignancy?
I'm not trying, it seems to turn out that way.
Love,
Mark