[MD] Intuitive Reasoning?

[Ham Priday]

Case, S.A., Mark --

[Case to Ham]:
> The problem with intuition is that it is an
> essentially private event. For example you have
> this intuition about essence and a passionate
> belief in the Primary Source. But until you can
> frame these in terms that inspire others to
> share your intuition or revelation then your
> passion will remain a private event.

Awareness, perception, thinking, imagining, and valuing are all "private"
events. It's the kind of event that all ideas come from.  The first step in
"framing" this concept is not to invent or define terms that will "inspire
others" but to realize that all knowledge and experience is proprietary to
the individual.  As Pirsig said about his Quality concept, "You don't have
to define it; everyone knows what it is," I say the same about proprietary
awareness.  The problem isn't that we don't understand such concepts.  It's
that we refuse to ACCEPT them.  This is a matter of personal choice, not
comprehension.

S.A said:
> Yes, a private event, unless, as you state one
> can inspire others or a revelation on the part of
> others occurs in order to understand ones intuition.
> Yet, how to connect and inspire others.  One way is
> not to dismiss what others have confronted you with,
> Ham.  Unless you are tired and admittedly can not
> avoid knowing what Mark has commented upon to be good.
> Still waiting for any kind of response to Mark's post
> some time ago.  It looks as if Ham accepts what Mark
> has to say, and Ham can not avoid the contradictions
> and poor explanatory value his thesis has.  This is a
> challenge to you Ham.  It does not have to mean
> defeat.  It just may mean that your thesis is
> incompatible to some on this earth. ...

No, I'm not chickening out or admitting "defeat"; I just happened to
overlook Mark's post -- possibly because it came up printed in the tiny type
he sometimes uses.  Thanks for requoting him, S.A.  Here are my comments:

[Ham, previously]:
> I see that you have chained yourself to the
> determinism of Pirsig's foes, the logical positivists.
> This perverted reasoning binds you to  the
> precept that there is no free will.

Mark: .
> Not at all. I don't know where you got that idea from?
> Clutching at straws methinks.
> The MoQ emphasises freedom and has an elegant
> explanation for its necessity.  Godnature.
> Your thesis desperately wants to explain freedom but
> fails to do so; my assessment is based on your own
> statements: You stress the importance of 'man' partaking
> of the divine and therefore free to choose to 'add' to a
> deterministic unfolding.  So, via man, essence contributes
> twofold to its unfolding:
> 1. By unfolding.
> 2. By allowing man to 'add' to the unfolding.
> But how can 'man' 'add' to a determined teleology?
> Man in your thesis is not man, he is Godman removed
> from nature.

Freedom goes hand in hand with autonomy.  Man is free because he is not tied
to causal reality.  Metaphysically, he is detached from the Source -- the
Essence which is his experiential object, so he is neither a Godman or a
Mangod. Man has a differentiated view of this object that represents his
essence.  He sees it as beingness "in process", as a multiplicity of things
and events coming into existence, undergoing various transformations, and
disappearing, only to be replaced by new things and events.  This is the
"unfolding" to which you refer.  "Determination" is an intellectual
construct based on the space/time modality of experience.  Teleology, like
evolution, is a deterministic way of interpreting  essential otherness
(i.e., cosmic design).  But man himself is the self-determinate agent of
this design.  Because man participates in otherness, his choices shape the
outcome of certain events, and to that extent his contributions are part of
the "determined" outcome or teleology of the cosmos.  But this transaction
has more to do with value sensibility than with the laws of Nature as viewed
from a deterministic perspective.

[snip]

Mark:
> The (theoretical) predetermined unfolding of essence
> as final cause 'knows' what the future holds doesn't it Ham?
> Answer: Yes Mark, indeed it does.

No it doesn't, Mark.  Evolution or unfolding "knows" nothing.  Physical
reality is the actualized appearance of Essence known only to the observer
(man).  Causes and consequences have no relevance to the immutable Source.
Determinism is
simply an intellectual concept of man to account for cause-and-effect in a
dynamic world.

Mark:
> So, man may think he is free, but he isn't from the
> point of view of Godman.
> Now you are back to the, 'how can 'man' 'add' to a
> determined teleology' question, to which the answer is:
> Man thinks he has free will but it's all predetermined
> final cause of essence unfolding anyway even if he
> thinks he's adding to it, which doesn't matter
> because he's Godman removed from nature.

Frankly, I don't know what "Godman" is supposed to mean, or what it's "point
of view" is.  But I do know that determination presupposes a system evolving
in time.  God (Essence) does not evolve; it is the timeless 'not-other' to
which cause and effect are identical, just as selfness and beingness are
identical.  So what you might believe is "predetermined to happen" at some
future time is already complete in the Oneness of Essence.

[Ham, previously]:
2. A "chain of  deduction" presupposes events
occurring over time.

Mark:
>  It presupposes change not time. Time is an
> artificial imposition upon our experience of change.

I'm afraid you will have to explain to me how change can occur without time.
A change from condition A to condition B is measured or plotted in units of
time.  If A = B no change has occurred.  What you call an "artifical
imposition" is the mode of human experience.

Mark:
> So, now you're telling me the very rationality of man
> is not part of his divine nature?
> And yet, your whole thesis begins and ends with
> rational thought.

If I used the term "divine nature" it was a response to your wording of a
question.  I prefer "essence" of man (lower case, to distinguish the
creature from the Creator).  Man is created such that his awareness is
separated from his essence.  So, that sense, awareness is not part of his
"divine nature"; he is estranged from his essence.  I don't know where you
get the idea that I begin and end my thesis with rational thought.  I begin
and end it with Value.  I use reason to explain it, of course, so perhaps
that's what you mean by "rational thought"?

[Ham, previously]:
> I'll accept the view that the serial flow of events is
> the experiential mode of human awareness.

Mark:
> You are swinging back and forth between experience
> of change, and the artificial construct of ordered time.
> We don't experience time, we experience change.
> It's a short step now to adding that we value change --
> change is of values.  Therefore human awareness is of value.
> Time is an intellectual construct of uniform division.

I really can't fault that assertion.  But I also don't see that I've
contradicted it.  If you substitute my "mode of awareness" for your
"artificial construct", you'll see that we're in agreement, except that you
seem to feel an intellectual construct is something other than experiential.
I would agree that intellection is not empirical experience, but consider it
a function of cognizant awareness.  Let me put it this way: We experience
change as a temporal phenomenon.  Does that resolve the problem?

[snip more references to "Godman" and "divine soul"]

[Ham, previously]:
> In fact, if we're talking about Absolute Reality, there is no
> "flow of events" because Essence is immutable and timeless.

Mark:
> The Hume approach:
> The timelessness of essence is an extrapolation from
> everyday examples, as Hume observed in his Treatise
> concerning Human understanding. It's not real, it's a
> story, a fiction, a narrative. As such, it is real in the sense
> that all stories from Father Christmas to Legend of sleepy
> hollow are real, but it's a Human invention. Actually,
> i think it's all a bit, 'My Dad's bigger than your Dad' in
> nature. Maybe a bit, 'My Willy's bigger than your Willy'
> in nature what with all this, 'Godman' stuff flying about?

You're flying the Godman, Mark.  I disavow the term.  The problem as I see
it is your rejection of a primary source.  Like most postmoderns, you view
it as a relic of religionism and prefer a belief system that is tied to
empirical experience.  In the tradition of materialistic objectivism, you
would have us throw the babe out with the bathwater.

Mark:
> Your thesis is an analogue of Quality which everyone
> experiences.  Stories of, 'That which is greatest' begin with
> everyday observations of values, which are then extended
> and exaggerated to infinite proportions.  This is the social
> aspect of your thesis which aims to garner celebrity status
> for its author.  On the intellectual level it has logical
> consistency - but no wonder?  You invented the rules
> based on rules you have observed in other narratives.
> If you say essence is the best thing since sliced
> bread then who can deny you?  After all, by definition,
> your essence is what you say it is.  But no one experiences
> it, except as a game of intellectual chess.  I could tell you
> i have a secret box under my bed which has all the
> properties of your essence couldn't i?

Not very likely, since Essence has no properties.  You sound very much like
Rigel defending his rational materialism.  The concept of a primary source
is no more difficult to comprehend or believe in than Pirsig's Quality.  Yet
it can explain many of the MoQ issues that remain in contention.  Like most
philosophers, I offer definitions, not "rules", and I've borrowed ideas that
support my thesis, as does Pirsig.  Not only have I shown how we all sense
value, which is our affinity for Essence in actualized experience, I've
provided a valuistic teleology whereby man reclaims his estranged essence.
Your charge that I "aim to garner celebrity status" is preposterous.  I
can't even garner philosophical acceptance in this forum!

I'll skip the ranting of your remaining comments, as they add nothing
constructive to the concept I'm trying to impart, and we would just be
recircling the bush.  I think I have addressed your questions to the point
of repeating myself, and further dialogue would appear useless.

I appreciate your initial interest in my philosophy, and the opportunity to
clarify some of the precepts.  Perhaps at a later time we can discuss
specific issues in a less antagonistic conversation.

Best regards,
Ham