[MD] Ham thinks the MOQ is a form of phenomenalism

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Hello Mark --


> My main criticism is that, prior to Human  experience
> you postulate a realm we do not have access to.
> The  realm in question is described in your thesis in some
> detail using the  language of Aristotle and related thinkers.
> In short, this realm is  conceptual; it is constructed from
> rational axioms.  But, many of  these axioms have an
> evolutionary history within the Western  philosophical
> tradition and are derived from Aristotle's  systematisation
> of logical causes and categories whether you like  it,
> recognise it, agree with it or not.

Since I do not wish to  stand accused of either "blocking intellectual
progress" or failing to tackle  alleged problems, allow me to address what
you state is your "main criticism"  of my thesis.
 
Mark: Hello Ham.
Well, you could also start answering some of my questions.
I mean, here we go again: I am about to go through and answer all your  
points, but i'm still waiting to hear some answers myself.
I am still waiting to hear what your views on evolution are?
Are you a creationist?

Ham: Mr. Pirsig postulated Quality as a realm  that he characterized as
"pre-intellectual", which to me means "prior to  human experience."
 
Mark: It may mean this to you, but it's not what it means to me and many  
others.
Quality is pre-intellectual, but it is experienced by Humans in the HERE  and 
NOW before intellectual patterning.
 
Ham: Why is
my concept of Essence any less valid as a realm that we do  not have [direct]
access to?
 
Mark: The whole point about Quality is that we do have direct access to it,  
that's why it is possible to claim value is more empirical than science.
Keep up for goodness sake Ham please?
Essence is an intellectual construct post-Quality awareness.
See the difference?
 
Ham: Is Pirsig's DQ
not a "rationalized" construction?
 
Mark: No.
 
Ham: Is it not, therefore, placeable within
the evolutionary history of  Western philosophical tradition?
 
Mark: The western tradition has largely ignored The Good over Truth. In a  
sense, this is one of the main points of ZMM if you have read it?
So, no. It's been largely ignored.
 
Ham: It seems to me
that Aristotle has not figured in either of our  philosophies, so I really
don't see the problem as you've defined it.
 
Mark: The problem with Aristotle and much of the Western tradition is the  
avoidance of recognising the formal role of Quality in rational  thought.

Ham: The problem I do see is that Pirsig has assiduously avoided  naming DQ 
as the
Primary Source.
 
Mark: DQ is metaphorically termed the cutting edge of reality from which  our 
static knowledge is extruded, rather like the vapour trail from a jet  engine.
If you consider our understanding to BE the vapour trail itself then  the 
vapour trail can't encapsulate it's source can it?
 
Ham: It is posited as a background or "ground of reality", if
you will,  but not as the causative 'first principle'.
 
Mark: Bloody hell, you're off with causation again.
The MoQ regards causation as a problem inherent in rational thought itself.  
It's a problem generator rather than a problem solver.
How many times have i now tried to inform you that causation is rejected in  
the MoQ?
Having said that, i understand you are tied to causation as a technical  term 
included your metaphysics. I think this generates enormous problems  for you.
 
Ham: I say this is a
problem because he cannot account for its origin or  its segmentation.
 
Mark: Quality is essential to Human experience - Human life. A life without  
Quality would kill you.
Quality is.
The segmentation of Quality is an intellectual activity.
 
Ham: In
other words, there is no cosmogony for Creation in the MoQ -- a  deficiency
which you yourself are currently trying to rectify with your Chaos  theory.
 
Mark: Actually, there is an evolutionary path which begins with Inorganic  
patterns of sq.
And, it is speculated in Lila that inorganic patterns were escaping up the  
evolutionary ladder away from chaos.
Remember the vapour trail analogy? Well, my speculations in cosmogony try  to 
view the distant vapour trail before it dissipates out of sight.

Ham: Another deficiency that follows from this is his dismissal of  
proprietary
awareness.
 
Mark: Not that we have had an initial deficiency mind you!
But to proceed with this next niggle:
The MoQ does not reject biological sensations and emotions.
These patterns are imprinted on Inorganic atoms and molecules and are  
spatio-temporally localised as 'Ham.'
Does this make sense?
Issues of property at the social and intellectual levels are another kettle  
of 'flisk' as Zeppo Marx would have it.
Social patterns of imitated behaviour are imprinted on Biological  patterns.
 
Ham: This leads to a logical fallacy, in that there can be no  Value
without awareness.
 
Mark: What makes you think atoms do not exhibit very low level awareness  
appropriate to their relationships?
What makes you think value is not a fundamental aspect of reality?
The difference between atoms and Ham is a vast (and i mean VAST) path of  
value evolution (vapour trail).
 
Ham: Rather than acknowledge awareness as proprietary to the
individual,  Pirsig marginalizes human sensibility and distributes awareness
throughout  the experienced universe, describing its affects on atoms, rocks,
trees, and  evolution itself.
 
Mark: As does Plotinus and Spinoza so it's not unheard of.
And Human sensibility is not marginalised by this, it is in fact  prioritised 
as the more moral.
I'm tempted to ask, 'For Goodness sake READ Lila why can't you?'
In other words, the most recent portions of the vapour trail are the more  
moral.
 
Ham: He is essentially "forced" to do this in order
to account for  sensibility or cognizance, which would (traditionally) be
seen as derivative  of the Primary Source missing in his ontology.
 
Mark: I feel i have identified the source of your apparent  incredulity; you 
haven't read ZMM or Lila recently enough to be able to recall  what it's all 
about.
The primary source in the MoQ is the cutting or leading edge of  evolution.
Recall the vapour trail analogy?
The primary source is HERE and NOW and you get closer to it if you  
concentrate on the HERE and NOW.
Now then, move the cutting edge back through evolution itself and we may,  or 
may not, reach a point called Chaos.
Either way, the primary source is here and now.
 
Ham: Indeed,
this universalization of Quality (Value) is the very  hallmark of the MoQ; it
is what distinguishes Pirsig's philosophy from all  others in the esteemed
"Western tradition".
 
Mark: But it never was distinguished from the Eastern tradition, where  
Quality is accepted.
The western tradition needs to recognise the formal role of Quality within  
rational thought, and the eastern tradition needs to value rational thought  
more.

Ham: Why is my philosophy of Essence free of these  deficiencies?  I believe 
I can
explain that quite simply.
 
Mark: Well, you've not been able to sustain any deficiencies in  the MoQ 
because your apparent deficiencies are, upon closer inspection,  misunderstandings.

Ham: First, Essence is the "uncreated" source.   It does not depend on 
evolution
as its cause like existing "things" do.   As the Primary Oneness, Essence is
the causal source of differentiated  sensibility in creatures, as well as the
cosmic design of the experienced  universe.  It doesn't "begin" as Chaos: it
doesn't begin at all.   It simply IS.  As Plotinus put it: "The One is the
first existent.   But the intelligence, the Ideas, and Being are not the
first.  Every  form is multiple and composite, and consequently, something
derived because  parts precede the composite they constitute.  ...As the One
begets all  things, it cannot be any of them -- neither thing, nor quality,
nor quantity,  nor intelligence, nor soul.  Not in motion, nor at rest, not
in space,  nor in time."
 
Mark: Fair enough, so Leave it alone.
If you are not going to leave it alone then you're going to divide the One  
on culturally inherited intellectual grounds.
Your culturally inherited intellectual grounds for division are clear from  
your on-line thesis.
The MoQ goes about it a different way by harmonising Eastern and Western  
traditions.

Ham: Since everything in the (experiential) universe is Being, and all  Being 
is
divided, mankind and Intelligence are divided.  But man's  awareness is
unique in that it is divided from Being, thus has no existence  except as it
perceives Being as its object.  This perception is an  intellectual construct
derived from its affinity for Essence, which we call  Value.  The poet muses
that 'Love is what makes the world go 'round,'  but Value is what makes the
world.  And Value would not exist were there  no awareness of it.  It is the
individual, therefore, who by sensing the  Value of the Source makes
being-aware.  And that which is of value to  the individual is the Essence of
his Being.
 
Mark: What a pile of toss.
You are neither here, nor there.
It seems to me you are a staunch individualist of the Ayan Rand mould and  
have shoehorned your cherry pickings from what philosophy you have read to  
support it.
I mean, even the most cursory observation of an Ant colony suggests ants  
exhibit awareness of their environment at a very basic level; disrupt their  
environment and they don't like it, they don't value it, and modify their  
behaviour accordingly.
Ants don't concern themselves with freaking essence and being and negation  
and all the blinking rest of it - they value.
We value at a far higher and more sophisticated level of awareness and we  
are morally superior for being this way.
'But man's awareness is unique in that it is divided from Being, thus has  no 
existence except as it perceives Being as its object.'
Dreadful.

Ham: I hope this little dissertation sheds enough light on my ontology  to
resolve, or at least address, your criticism.
 
Mark: The world of metaphysics you enjoy and explore is a fascinating and  
worthwhile endeavour. May it provide you with hours of fun.
I too have studied Plotinus and that kind of thing, and i've been lucky  
enough to have done so with an expert; we're talking Oxford bloke who spoke  
ancient greek when he was 12 and reads Plotinus in the original. The same man is  a 
fan of Pirsig by the way and indicated similarities between ZMM and the  
Enneads to me.
My fragile mind tried to cope with those things i was introduced to, and i  
enjoyed it all.
I love Plotinus, Aristotle, Plato and allot else, but the MoQ has, IMHO hit  
the nail on the head.
The Western tradition is valuable and part of value evolution. But it's  2006 
and we have a whole global cultural vista before us which began to open up  
after the second world war when Northrop wrote, 'The meeting of East and West' 
-  a book which inspired Pirsig to explore more than we had up to that point 
been  able to comprehend.
This forum, MOQ.org exists because of the increasing dialogue between  
diverse philosophical traditions, and i find it a tad insulting that you have  been 
using it to force your own views with a lack of grace. I support you  in your 
enquiry. I value your enquiry. But you have conducted your enquiry with  a 
sneering disregard and barely hidden contempt for ideas you repeatedly reveal  to 
be ignorant of. And in philosophy Ham, that is a poor show.
You are a guest here and you've been caught pissing in the Whiskey.
 
(Incidentally, since I do not
share Plato's theory of "universals", a  horse is just a horse, and the only
"horseness" I recognize is the irritation  I feel in my throat at this late
hour.)

Cheers, and have a great  day,

Mark: Don't drink the whiskey.
Love,
Mark