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

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Mark -- 

<snip>

You're jumping to a false conclusion.  I said that evolution was  something
working toward a specifiic end.  I didn't say that man is not  free.
Remember, I also said "I do not subscribe to the notion that everything  is a
product of evolution" and that "man's awareness is unique in that it  is
divided from Being."  (This was part of my précis that you called "a  pile of
toss".)  What exists is Being -- Nature or the cosmos.  The  cosmic design as
experienced by man is evolutionary; that is, he sees it as a  process that
changes from status A to status B over time.  But man's  self-awareness is
disconnected from this process; he is a free agent, and his  actions are
those of a self-determinate creature.  So human progress  reflects the
choices made by individuals and are not determined by biological  evolution.
 
Mark: Hello Ham.
This clears things up, thanks.
I don't agree with your stance and i don't think you give a good account of  
why Humans are privileged in this regard.
As far as the MoQ is concerned ALL patterns are involved in an evolutionary  
process from atoms to ideas.
Being is as close as you want to be to it.

Ham: What we call  existence is the empirical world of "beingness".  What I 
call
Essence is  not.  Man's essence is not empirical, and man's awareness is a
"null" in  Essence.  Therefore, man is removed from the chain of deduction
(i.e,  determination).  He is free to "become" what he chooses to be because
he  cannot access the future; he cannot know in advance the consequences of
his  actions.
 
Mark: Then you have confirmed what i said. Essence is a chain of  deduction.
In other words, Essence is an intellectual postulation.
More than this, 'Man' comes before essence truth be known!
It is man who invents essence and then says, 'Essence created me.'
Quality is experienced by everyone, and then we can say, 'Quality created  
me.'

Ham: Values are the individual's affinity for Essence and are not  dependent 
on
temporality or evolution.  You yourself have said that  Dynamic Quality is
pre-intellectual, so you should understand that this holds  true for Value as
well.  The intellectual constructs of being follow the  perception of Value.
 
Mark: This does not accord with the MoQ.
The MoQ suggests that everything is value.

Ham: Since space/time is  mode of human experience, our empirical 
(intellectual)
construct of the  universe is framed in these dimensions.
 
Mark: Space-time is an intellectual pattern of value in the MoQ - we do not  
experience space-time we postulate it.
Essence and space-time are on a par with the same level of value  evolution - 
they are both intellectual postulations.

Ham: Not at  all.  Human choices "add" to the "unfolding" but do not affect  
what
you're calling evolutionary process.  In retrospect -- after the  fact -- 
everything that happens can theoretically be linked to  pre-determined
causes.  But man doesn't possess this knowledge at the  time he decides to
act; he is therefore not pre-determined but is always free  to choose.
 
Mark: Sounds to me like your committed to determinism. You want your cake  
and you want to eat it but truth is, you can't be sure can  you?

<snip>

Mark:
Humanity partakes of intellect which is a
> cause of the  Cosmos so Humanity is special in this regard.
> Humanity has something of  the divine about it which the
> rest of the biosphere is excluded  from.

Ham: You could put it that way.
 
Mark: I shall take that as a 'Yes' then.
 
Ham: I would eliminate the collectivist term
"humanity" which is  misleading in this context.
 
Mark: Men and Women are Humans. Humanity is a collective of both men and  
women.
 
Ham: Man partakes of existential
reality by his proprietary (individual)  awareness of its value, which is his
essential complement.  In that  sense the human being is afforded a "taste"
of Essence (or the  "divine").
 
Mark: I noticed recently that you had to tweak your thesis in order to  
explain the nature of value in this context Ham.
You used the term, esthesis? (See? I have been following you)
As you know, the MoQ does not confine value to Humans; values are reality  
itself. Therefore, the divine is tasted by everything (even women) in increasing 
 degrees of evolutionary progress - in fact, evolution simply IS value  
evolution.

Ham: 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:
> I'm not arguing, i'm appealing to  experience.
> Quality is immediate experience while essence is  deduced.

Ham: A THEORY of quality is deduced, Not Quality itself.
 
Mark: Quality is immediate experience from which patterns such as  deductions 
emerge.
A theory of Quality, called the MoQ, which is an intellectual pattern  of 
value, allows you to look for yourself and observe there to be Inorganic,  
Biological, Social and Intellectual realms of values. It is verifiable.

Ham: A THEORY of essence is deduced, not Essence itself.
There is a  difference, you know.  Let's not confuse the issue.
 
Mark: In what sense is Essence experienced? How can people verify essence  
except purely as a chain of deductive inference with no basis in empirical  
reality other than intellectual reality?
Quality is experienced while essence is deduced.

Ham: [I'll skip the  dialogue on whether the mathematician's sense of Quality
"signifies" that a  theorem works, because I think it's begging the question
and a 'tad'  juvenile.]
 
Mark: As one who claims to be a freethinker it does not behove you to  behave 
like this Ham.
You are making a serious mistake disregarding this area.
The truth of this matter completely undercuts your  thesis.

Mark:
> DQ is the conceptually unknown so it can't be  rational
> or a construct can it?
> I gather you have read  SODV?

Ham: I don't understand the point of this question, or why you  continue to 
assail
me with it.  One can develop a rational theory or  "construct", whether or
not it can be empirically validated.
 
Mark: Phlogeston was a theory but we don't use it today cos it's a bad  
theory, which is to say a better one was developed, which is to say one with  
higher Quality.
 
Ham: Actually, Einstein's Theory of
Relativity and Darwin's Evolution of  the Species are such constructs; both
are still being verified against  empirical data.
 
Mark: Unlike Phlogeston. Note the simplicity and elegance of Relativity and  
Evolution. Notice the aesthetic.
Theory is chosen on aesthetic grounds which is to say upon their  value.
 
Ham: My theory of Essence is no
less theoretical than Pirsig's theory of  DQ.
 
Mark: DQ isn't a theory. DQ is experienced.
What experience do we have of Essence?
 
Ham: (His claim that DQ is directly
experiencable is a separate issue  that does not refute the fact that the
theory was developed through a  reasoning process.)
 
Mark: The claim is that ALL reasoning processes are emerging from DQ as an  
aesthetic.
DQ is the source of rationality itself.
Essence is nothing without rational thought - Essence begins and ends with  
rational thought, but not experienced except as rational thought.
All your guff about 'man' tasting the divine is a pointer toward the  Quality 
you experience being codified as a pattern of rational intellectual  thought, 
in the same way religion is a Social patterning of the Quality devout  
religious people experience in their lives being codified in their  religion.
In other words, you worship in the church of reason.

Ham: Yes, I've read SODV.  How much science have you  studied?
 
Mark: A-level Maths, Physics and Chemistry. Personal interests  aside.

[SNIP]

Ham: I doubt that the sophists thought in terms of  levels and heirarchies.
Anyway, no matter how important the Good may be, we  can't define it
intellectually.  Man tends to anthropmorphize goodness,  as he does God.
That's why I don't preach a "benevolent" Creator; what's  "good" for me may
not be "good" from the absolute perspective of  Essence.
 
Mark: And so for suicide bombers.

[SNIP]

Ham: I'm quite sure  that, if pressed sufficiently, Pirsig would answer that 
SQ is
the  source.
 
Mark: Ham, we had been discussing cosmogony. From a cosmogony point of  view, 
i am not sure where patterns originate.
 
Ham: But a "fall-back position" really dismisses the significance of
the  Primary Source.  Without a source behind SQ, patterns are  meaningless
because there is no defined purpose and no ultimate end to  evolution.  You
say substance-centered metaphysics doesn't define what  life evolves toward.
I agree.  But you don't say what the MoQ evolves  toward.  If it's
"betterness", what does that mean?
 
Mark: The end is DQ and this may be the source also.

Still hanging  in here (maybe you can tell me why?),
Ham
 
Mark: I'm waiting for the Penny to drop.
It may not happen - you're so freethinking.
Love,
Mark