[MD] Ham thinks the <OQ is a form of phenomenalism

[Ham Priday]

Mark --

There are times when I get the feeling that, rather than engaging in a
dialogue, I'm being subjected to an inquisition to determine the extent of
my
heresy against the canonical tenets of Robert Pirsig.  This is such a time.
As you seem to be annoyed by my "generalized" answers, I'll conduct my
Defense based on specific questions, if that is permissable by you.  Kindly
try to remember that I consider myself a free-thinker who is not bound by
the tenets of Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Descartes, or Pirsig.  If that is a
"sin" by your standards, then you have judged me guilty on prima facie
evidence.

You ask:
> I am still waiting to hear what your views
> on evolution are?  Are you a creationist?

Evolution is the organizational working out of something to a specific
end -- i.e., "action by final causation".  I recognize, as did Plotinus,
that all existents, including our mode of perceiving them, are derived from
a timeless Source.  But, since the mode of human perception is temporal,
things are intellectually conceived to arise in an orderly fashion over the
span of time.  Therefore, insofar as we are speaking from an existential
perspective, Evolution, as described by Darwin, is not only compatible with
my philosophy of Essence, it's a useful scenario for investigating and
understanding natural principles, especially as they apply to the
development of biological organisms.

On the other hand, I am not an Evolutionist; that is, I do not subscribe to
the notion that everything is necessarily a product of evolution.  For
example, cognizant precepts or values, such as intellect, beauty, morality,
and justice, except for the effects of cultural conditioning, are the same
today as they always were.

Am I a "Creationist"?  This is a relatively new label usually applied by ID
antagonists to Seventh Day Adventists and other fundamentist sects who
believe that Man and Nature were created in six days by an anthropomorphic
deity.  If that is your definition -- Creationism isn't even defined in my
dictionary -- then,
my answer is unequivocally No.  If, however, you are asking: Do I believe
Man to be a special creation of the Primary Source?, I would have to say
Yes.

I asked:
> Why is my concept of Essence any less valid [than DQ]
> 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?

I see the difference you're trying to make in your argument, but I don't
accept the premise that value is more empirical than science.  Also, I'm
aware that many people are oblivious to the quality I recognize in certain
things.  People who are tone-deaf cannot realize the quality of music.
People untrained in science, math or logic cannot be expected to perceive
the quality of a theorem.  Barbarians bound to tribal customs are unable to
appreciate the value of freedom.  In fact, unless you restrict Quality to
somatic sensations like pain or pleasure, it is not empirically true that
Quality is directly accessible.

Ham:
> Is Pirsig's DQ not a "rationalized" construction?

 Mark:
> No.

Then please explain to me how he arrived at the concept.

 Ham:
> Is [the MoQ] 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.

That's strange.  In my studies of Western Philosophy, defining what is
morally good appears to have been the major objective.  Finding the summum
bonum was the quest of Plato and Aristotle, and even theoreticians like Kant
and Spinoza seem to have been obsessed with this issue.  I don't know how
you can say it's been largely ignored.

 Mark:
> The problem with Aristotle and much of the Western
> tradition is the avoidance of recognising the formal role
> of Quality in rational thought.

Well, that's a bit self-aggrandizing, isn't it?  After all, you can't expect
Aristotle to have read ZMM and LILA, can you?  Ill bet Aristotle couldn't
even have told you what a Creationist is.

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?

I'm trying to imagine a vapor trail as a "cutting edge".  You must mean the
sharply defined part of the trail nearest the jet engine which plumes out as
the plane leaves it.  Of course the vapor trail can't encapsulate the
source; the source is a solid object, the trail is a cloud.

Ham:
> [Quality] 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.

You see, I think the problem is yours.  If you are unable to establish a
starting point for your cosmogony, you have no cosmogony.  Evolution
presupposes a beginning and an end.  If reality is a process, whether you
call it 'causal' or 'serial', it must have a starting point.  Science
currently theorizes the Big Bang as the starting point for the universe.
Where does your MoQ reality begin, what is its source, and what is its final
end?  You have still not answered those questions.

Mark:
> Quality is essential to Human experience - Human life.
> A life without Quality would kill you.

Why is that?  What about those who don't experience Love, Beauty, Freedom,
Compassion, or Spirituality?  These are qualities (values), aren't they?
Yet, such people are alive.  I would turn your assertion around and say a
world without awareness would kill Quality.

Mark:
> The segmentation of Quality is an intellectual activity.

On that we are in agreement.

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.

Patterns were escaping up the evolutionary ladder -- like a vapor trail?
Sounds like smoke and mirrors to me.

[SNIP]

Mark:
> 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?

Is this space/time localization an intellectual construct or an innate
function of Nature?  Does the MoQ Reality include the dimensions (patterns?)
of time and space as pre-intellectual attributes?

Mark:
> 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.

What is the stamp that makes such imprints?  In other words, where do the
patterns come from?  And what is the ultimate pattern -- the teleological
goal of this reality?  I'm sorry if you regard these as 'causal' questions.
But you're presenting me with a hypothesis, expecting me to accept it on
faith in the author's knowledge.  All the patterns you mention have to be
derived from some source; otherwise, they're hanging in limbo, like so many
angels on the head of a pin.  It's one thing to believe in an entity that
had no beginning and never changes.  But you want me to believe in patterned
imprints that give rise to things that are constantly in flux -- like Ham
Priday, who began as a fertilized egg and transmorphized into an old man.
That's not an easy scenario to follow (or swallow).

 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).

You're still blowing smoke at me, Mark.  There are lots of reasons for
doubting the notion that inanimate behavior is due to "low level awareness".
(Talk about "religious baggage"!)  This pagan belief was once called
"animism", and it has since been relegated to the scrap heap of superstition
and witchcraft.  It is a substitute for Teleology in which the constituents
of Nature are "pulled" toward an ultimate state by a supernatural force.
Your author scoffs at supernaturalism because it suggests a Creator, which
of course is unpalatable to the postmodern elitist.  So, now we've had to
invent memes, biogenesis, sweet spots, and low-level awareness to explain
it.  I don't concern myself with elitist snobbery.  For me, creation is the
work of a Creator, and the design of the cosmos is the actualized
(differentiated) experience of Essence.

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. ...In other words, the most
> recent portions of the vapour trail are the more moral.

More smoke!

Mark:
> 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.

I happen to like harmony and cogency.  Why should I strive to reach a point
called Chaos?

Ham:
> 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.

I'n not really into Eastern tradition.  Can you provide an example of where
this tradition accepts Quality?

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.

Well, since you refuse to acknowledge what I've clearly pointed out as
metaphysical inadequacies, there's no point in showing how I've overcome
them, is there?  This intransigency is Mark "blocking progress" not Ham.

[SNIP]

Mark:
> 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.

As you said, fair enough, so leave it alone.

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.

I consider that a "low quality" appraisal, Mark.  I happen to think that's a
pretty good precise, and I'll stack it up against your vapor trails any day.

Mark:
> You are neither here, nor there.
> It seems to me you are a staunch individualist of the
> Ayn Rand mould and have shoehorned your cherry pickings
> from what philosophy you have read to support it.

You have the right to that opinion, even though it's absurd.

Mark:
> I mean, even the most cursory observation of an Ant colony
> suggests ants exhibit awareness of their environment at a very
> basic level ...

Oh yes, the "hive mentality".  Birds and bees and ants.  I've heard it all
before.
This is biological instinct, nothing more.  It's programmed into the genes.
But at least you're attributing "awareness" to something animate for a
change.

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.

Well, don't hold back on my account, Mark.  I gave you the best I had, but
I'm just a passing inquirer in this forum.  I never studied at Oxford and
only took one Philosophy course, let alone having a professor who spoke
ancient Greek at 12.  I guess Northrup was lucky to have been born at a time
when value had evolved enough for him to make a contribution.  I'll overlook
the deprecating comments, but I am sorry you think that I've "forced my own
views" on you.  It was my intention to have a productive and congenial
dialogue with someone who was interested in my philosophy and open to new
perspectives.  Apparently, you had another agenda for which I don't qualify.

Best of luck with your philosophy career,
Ham