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

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Okay, Mark, here's Pt. II of my comments on yours...

[By the way, I  erroneously typed SQ for DQ twice in the last question of the
previous post,  but I expect you'll note the errors and figure out what I was
saying.]
 
Mark: Hello Ham.
I think i missed it. I took it to be your usual lack of  understanding.

<snip>

Ham: This metaphor for "awakening" to Quality or "intellectual  understanding"
seems to resonate with the MoQ crowd, and I suppose it's  because the term
"cutting edge" offers a transition point from the  traditional notion of
Oneness to the pluralistic experience of the  'NOW'.
 
Mark: You've got this wrong way around:
NOW = One
Understanding = many.
 
Ham: Like the extruding end
of an office paper shredder or the butcher's  meat grinder, what "comes out"
is a continuous stream of differentiated  values (i.e., your 'vapor trail').
While this analogy is conceptually useful  -- and makes proprietary awareness
a part of the stream -- 
 
Mark: 'Proprietary awareness' is a pattern of the many and as such is  one of 
many.
The question then becomes, 'Which description of the self is best?' to  which 
there is no single answer.
However, the term 'self' can be unpacked into DQ/sq aspects and the self  may 
be described as a sq patterning responding to DQ.
Our freedom then becomes the cutting edge DQ while our chains are sq  
patterns.
I recognisee the term, 'Proprietary awareness' has a specific meaning in  
your thesis but it's very narrow compared with the MoQ.
Bloody hell is it narrow!
 
Ham: I still think  Pirsig's ontology would have been
better served  had he reversed SQ and DQ; that is, made the Source "static
quality" and the  Experience "dynamic quality".
 
Mark: Well, If experience and source coincide you've got a problem.
Remember, experience of Quality is pre-intellectual cutting edge  and 
unpatterned.

Ham: The most difficult challenge for a philosopher is  to explain how 'the 
One'
gives rise to 'the Many', how Difference and  contrariety arise from Unity
and non-contradiction.
 
Mark: Actually, i think the most difficult problem for a philosopher is to  
be careful not to become static - to remain open to DQ.
Plotinus says that the aim of philosophy is to experience union with the  One.
If the One is NOW then the aim of philosophy is to reach DQ. This may be  
what Plotinus was on about.
No. When you say, 'The most difficult challenge for a philosopher is to  
explain how...' blar blar blar, you may be saying, 'The most difficult challenge  
for philosophers with a bent for logic is to...' blar blar blar.
Pierre Hadot, a Plotinus scholar wrote a book called, Philosophy as a  way of 
life. I think this is a better aim of philosophy.
 
Ham: Indeed, the value of a metaphysical thesis hangs on
the author's  ability to come up with a workable ontology.  Pirsig and I both
base our  ontologies on experience.
 
Mark: This is news to me Ham. How is Essence experienced if not within a  
convoluted rational deductive system?
 
Ham: Perhaps by concocting a similar paradigm
for the philosophy of  Essence you will gain a better understanding of my
perspective.
 
Mark: By, 'Concocting a similar paradigm' do you mean, 'a  convoluted 
rational deductive system?'

Ham: According to Cusan logic (and  the law of contradiction)...
 
Mark: Here we go. Now that you have shifted the dialogue into the realm of  
the, 'Convoluted rational deductive system' you can bang on and on and on.
The whole edifice is a rational postulate with no empirical experience  other 
than rational thought itself.
 
Ham: existents are
"contingencies"; that is, a thing can not exist  without the potentiality of
it not existing.
 
Mark: Why?
 
Ham: Possibility and actuality are co-dependent in existence
but  coincide in the non-contradictory Source, in which opposites  like
'positive/negative' and 'being/nothing' are equivalent.
 
Mark: Why? Who says so? Who experiences this?
 
Mark: If "things" are
what exist, then their potentiality to exist is  the "other side of the
coin."  Things exist not by their own necessity  but by the potential of a
necessary source.
 
Mark: Why so? Why is anything necessary?
 
Ham: Essence is Absolute Potentiality, and its mode of
creation is  negation.  What it negates is an "otherness" that we call
sensible  awareness.
 
Mark: Why? Why cannot this relationship be reversed? Why cannot I be  
Absolute Potential?
 
Ham: Awareness is the primary differential contingency; by
itself it is  nothing (literally a "no-thing").
 
Mark: How do you see or know this Ham?
 
Ham: It's a subject that requires
an object: the appearance of  beingness.
 
Mark: Why cannot this relationship be reversed?
 
Ham: It derives this object from the
value of its estranged  Essence.
 
Mark: How do you see or experience this Ham? How does anyone directly  
experience this Ham?
 
Ham: For something to be it must be made aware.
 
Mark: Again Why? Because Sartre said so? How does the unaware become  aware?

Ham: So existence is the  "actualization" of the dichotomy  
beingness/awareness.
 
Mark: How is this directly experienced?

Ham: And, by virtue
 
Mark: What do you mean, 'by Virtue?'
 
Ham: of the fact that this contingency is a negation of  absolute
"unity", everything in existence is differentiated.  The  immutable One
actualizes the transitional Many.
 
Mark: How is this directly experienced by people on a day-to-day basis  Ham?
 
Ham: Here you go, quoting Pirsig at me again.  The prose is beautiful  and the
alliteration is wonderful, but the moral concept it claims to  substantiate
carries no more weight than an idealist's dream.  It's nice  and
psychologically uplifting to think of reality as an evolution toward  some
utopic end.  But there is no evidence or logical support for the  idea that
this is a moralistic world, or that "static" and "dynamic" patterns  will get
us there.  On what grounds do you assert: "Dynamic Quality, the  Quality of
freedom, creates this world."?   Where is Pirsig's  thesis for equating
Freedom with Quality?
 
Mark: The realisation that morals may be basic constituents of  reality 
begins with experience.
Robert Pirsig chose a real experience in his life as a point from which to  
begin - the motorcycle.
Anything less than a real experience would have failed because integrity is  
everything.
An examination of why a motorcycle is better when maintained becomes an  
exploration of values and morals.
Re: utopia. The nature of DQ is such that it can induce degeneration as  well 
as advance. It's not assured that utopia awaits. But with careful  
maintenance there is hope.

Ham:
> Where do the patterns come from?

Mark:
>  Again, the patterns emerge from a struggle of Dynamic
> pushes  forward.

Ham: What does that mean?  Why are "forces'  struggling?  In my reality, I see
PEOPLE struggling, not Nature.   Pirsig's Dynamic universe usurps man's
innate creativity, intellect,  choicemaking, and conflict, denying his
freedom and essentially "pushing" him  to some undefined end.  Whatever else
the MoQ may be, it is certainly  not a recipe for individualism.
 
Mark: I acknowledge you have created a thesis which does provide a recipe  
for individualism, which is why i feel you are being dishonest calling your  
thesis essentialism. A better title would be, 'Individualism' or 'proprietary  
proprioceptive awareness' or something? Because you begin with the individual in 
 mind and bend your metaphysics to match. Freethinker indeed! Nazi more  like.
'Man,' as you insist on referring to Humans no matter if they happen to be  
women, is the only pattern of value which is as Dynamic as you want him to be,  
so i can't see your bleedin' problem Ham? The intellectual realm is all you 
want  of it, and the arts more so.
And, Humans create their future in the choices they make, and the best  
choices are appropriate because who would want to choose anything other than DQ  
for their goal?

Again, you say...
Mark:
> The moves forward are  Dynamic, open, and become
> more free as evolution progresses. The goal is  DQ itself.

Ham: If the universe progresses by evolution to its own goal,  what's in it 
for
man?
 
Mark: The best Humans can aspire to. If they want it.
 
Ham: How does the individual participate as an active existent in such  a
world?
 
Mark: The best Humans can aspire to is going to be visualised by those  
Dynamic enough to see it and with the help of many.
 
Ham: What role does man serve, if any?
 
Mark: I think man serves Quality.
 
Ham: I continue to see this as a
glaring omission of Pirsig's  philosophy.
 
Mark: As i think you have appreciated by now, i do not like the term,  'man.' 
I understand many people use man to refer to all people, so why not use  the 
term Human? Men and Women are Humans.
If Humanity began to pay more attention to real Quality rather than the,  
'Sell them a dream then ship 'em shit' mentality of our capitalist culture we  
may become more civilised?
Individuals are great in my view, but i want the individuals leading  society 
to be Quality individuals; people of value and integrity; people of  
intelligence and vision; people who understand the best culture has to offer is  the 
birthright of all children to explore and enjoy without  privilege.

And again,
Mark:
> The patterns are won and lost in  the Dynamic forge
> of evolutionary development.  The good patterns  like
> DNA and Democracy survive while competing patterns
> lost  out.

Ham: Then why not let the patterns fight it out, and let man dream  or 
something?
 
Mark: I was dreaming when i trotted out my little vision of utopia above,  
you know that bit about people of value and integrity and stuff?
We have to drag the Dynamic dream into  existence.

[SNIP]

Mark:
> I'm suggesting the vast energetic  fizz of atomic activity
> is very low level awareness appropriate to the  environment.

Ham:
> It is a substitute for Teleology in which the  constituents
> of Nature are "pulled" toward an ultimate state by  a
> supernatural force.

Mark:
> 'I agree with these  dictionary definitions of supernatural:
> 1. Of or relating to existence  outside the natural world.
> 2. Attributed to a power that seems to  violate or go beyond
> natural forces.
> 3. Of or relating to a  deity.
> 4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine  power;
> miraculous.
> 5. Of or relating to the miraculous.  I  should add that
> Shunryu Suzuki has quipped that Zen is  "supernatural"
> in the sense of being super natural, that is, more  natural than
> what is usually meant by natural.'  (McWatt. 2004. p.  49)

Ham: I don't know what Ant is trying to prove here.  I can  accept #1 but see 
no
need for the remaining qualifications.
 
Mark: This is Pirsig speaking and the definitions are pulled from  dictionary 
sources.
Apparently these meanings are established enough to have become common  
currency.

Mark:
> Fair enough. If you have rationally deduced there  to be
> a creator and Humanity is its special buddy then so be it.
>  re: postmodernism. I'm not a fan. I think it's a load of garbage.
> re:  memes. A nod toward recognising an independent social
> level of evolution  by science itself.
> re: biogenesis. I don't know what this is. I'll have  to look it up.
> re: sweet spots. Part of experience. Explain  them?
> re: low-level awareness. Too low to be worried about.
> It's  so immoral all life tries to move away from it.

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.

Ham: More  smoke!
 
Mark: If the day should arrive when the Penny does indeed drop i think you  
will appreciate that Human intellect is regarded as the most moral and Dynamic  
patterning in the MoQ. I thought you would be happy about  this?

Mark:
> No, seriously, Intellectual values are the most  moral, dynamic,
> and worthwhile according to the MoQ.
> This is why  i support you Ham even if you can't see the holes
> in your  thesis.

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

Mark:
> What are you  talking about:
> 1. Here and now?
> 2. The start?
> 3. The  end?

Ham: The whole damned thing!
 
Mark: OK. Harmony or coherence as i prefer it is what is attractive while  
chaos is flown from.

[ZIP the discussion of Eastern tradition -- it's  only "clues" and nonsense.]

Ham [on what Mark regards as "a pile of  toss"]
> 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:
> It is a low quality appraisal and  i apologise for  it.
>
> 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.

Ham: For your information, I have  great admiration for Ayn Rand as an 
advocate
for individualism; however, I  have written several essays that demonstrate
her weakness as a metaphysical  theorist.  Rand is the archetype Objectivist,
definitely not an  Essentialist.

Ham: I shall leave the following close "for the  record".

Mark:
> Come off it Ham? You've been talking down your  nose
> about this MoQ lark as if you're having to contemplate a dog  turd.
> I've not studied at Oxford. But if someone has and they  know
> their Plotinus and they quite like ZMM and promote an
>  enthusiastic engagement with things philosophical then i feel
> we can  too?
> Take your vapour trail quips in this very thread?
> There's  no need for it is there?
> I mean, i am trying to get what may be an  unfamiliar point
> of view across to you and all i get is sarcasm.
>  It doesn't have to be like this.

No it doesn't, Mark.

Best  regards,
Ham
 
Mark: Your responses are becoming rather weak Ham and i'm not expecting too  
much from now on.
Surprise me?
Love,
Mark