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

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Mark: Hello Ham.
 
Ham's position:
1. '...what you might believe is "predetermined to happen" at some future  
time is already complete in the Oneness of Essence.'
2. 'Metaphysically man is detached from Essence which is his  experiential 
object.'
 
3. 'Man has a differentiated view of this object that represents his  essence'
 
4. 'Man is created such that his awareness is separated from his  essence'


5. 'Man is free because he is not tied to causal reality.'
6. 'Man's sense of value is his affinity for Essence in actualized  
experience...'
7. Teleology is valuistic whereby man reclaims his estranged  essence.'
 
The MoQ position contrasted with Ham's position:
1. Essence seems similar to the Quality of ZMM.
However, the Essence you describe here is loaded with conceptions and is  
therefore not the same as Quality. Quality is experienced; it is not  conceptual 
in nature; one cannot say of Quality, for example, that future events  are 
already complete in Quality.
 
2. Differentiation's may be described metaphysically. The MoQ  describes 
differentiation's as sq aspects of DQ.
Note: sq and DQ are prior to Humans - Humans are composed of  sq with DQ as 
sq's essence.
Therefore, Humans are not detached from an  Essence, Humans ARE essentially 
DQ, as are ALL sq patterns.
DQ is NOT an object.
 
3. Metaphysically, DQ is Human's essence. DQ is the essence of  sq.
However: DQ is NOT an object.
 
4. Humans are not created: Humans are, and continue to  evolve, as sq 
patterns, toward DQ.
Evolution does not have a determined teleology - evolution is open and  
migrating toward DQ.
All sq patterns are aware in the sense that they value their evolutionary  
relationships.
Humans are sq patterns.
Therefore, Humans value their relationships and this is relative awareness  
of DQ depending on their evolutionary status.
 
5. Humans are free in a Dynamic aspect, and stable in a static  aspect.
Humanity is least free at the Inorganic level, and most free at the  
Intellectual level. (relative evolutionary status)
The intellectual level is closest to DQ, while Inorganic patterns are  
furthest from DQ. (relative evolutionary status)
 
6. This statement uses the language of a Substance based metaphysics  which 
subordinates value to Substance.
The MoQ subordinates Substance to value.
Substances have modes such as potential and actual.
Values replaces substances in a value based metaphysics such as the MoQ  
making causation (potential/actual) redundant.
In a substance based metaphysics such as Essentialism, substances such as,  
'men' have values attributed to them.
In a Value based metaphysics such as the MoQ, values such as, 'Humans' may  
be regarded as substances.
 
7. Values may be either more or less Dynamic. Humans are more moral when  
Dynamic, as in creative endeavours such as the Arts (which include all  
intellectual endeavours as well as those traditionally associated with art such  as 
painting, music, etc.)
Therefore, Humans do not reclaim what exists but create new reality which  
has hitherto not existed.
 
Mark: What we have here is a chasm Ham between your Substance based  
metaphysics and the Value based metaphysics of the MoQ.
Now to deal with your tedious post...
 
 
<snip>


Ham: Freedom goes hand in hand with autonomy.  Man is free because  he is not 
tied
to causal reality.
 
Your assertions:
1. Reality is causal.
2. Nature is causal.
3. Man = Proprietary awareness (PA from now on)
The MoQ does not state reality to be causal. (Even science does  not 
entertain this daft out of date notion) The MoQ states that DQ (freedom) is  the 
cutting edge of reality from which static patterns (stability) emerge. Both  
freedom and stability are required for life.
Therefore, Humans (as sq) do not have to be surgically removed from  that 
which is the same as they are: Reality, nature, DQ/sq.
Humans are free depending on how Dynamic they are.
 
Ham: Metaphysically, he is detached from the Source -- the
Essence which  is his experiential object, so he is neither a Godman or a
Mangod.
 
Mark: I have thus far established that, 'Man' is PA removed from nature and  
essence.
Where is PA Ham?
Is PA a point on a continuum between matter and essence, so that PA  sees 
causal reality one way and essence the other, PA being neither: PA is  a dot on a 
continuum between matter and essence.  
One could postulate Angels - beings closer to essence than PA - beings  more 
moral and superior than PA (as does Plotinus).
One could postulate beings closer to matter than PA - Cats, trees, George  
Bush for example (as does Plotinus).
So, Godman/Mangod has now assumed a position in the pecking order of  
actualisation.
But soft, doesn't this mean that the freedom of PA is relative on the  
continuum?
There are beings more and less free than PA. Oh dear. It's all going tits  up 
again isn't it?

 
Ham: Man has a differentiated view of this object that represents  his
essence.
 
Mark: PA of the differentiated is a representation of essence.
Angels many have a less differentiated and more unitary view of  essence?
 
Ham: 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.
 
Mark: PA is of the differentiated AND essence.
In what balance or proportion?
Are there beings with a higher proportion of essence than  differentiation?
 
Ham: "Determination" is an intellectual
construct based on the  space/time modality of experience.
 
Mark: But PA has assigned determinism to be a property of matter  AND essence 
as final cause.
Doesn't this look very much like the seed and Oak tree metaphor expanded to  
the cosmos Ham?
 
Ham: Teleology, like
evolution, is a deterministic way of  interpreting  essential otherness
(i.e., cosmic design).
 
Mark: And by the looks of it, if essence has a final cause then  teleology 
and evolution on your terms have got it right by definition.
 
Ham: But man himself is the self-determinate agent of
this design.
 
Mark: This is self contradictory.
 
Ham: 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.
 
Mark: The reason you have provided for self-determination is weak: 'Man'  
participates in otherness.'
If we examine what you mean by, 'Otherness', otherness means an  intellectual 
postulation of an arbitrary nature, i.e. Essence. In other words,  essence is 
what your intellectual tradition says it is without appeal to  verifying 
experience other than as an intellectual postulation.
Which is fine, but you've opened the door to angels and you can't close  it.
'Think I'll sit down and invent some fool ---
Some grand court  jester
And next time the die is cast, he'll throw a six or two
In and out  of the back-door, ran one front-door angel
Her hair was a golden-brown  ---
She smiled and I think she winked her eye.' Ian Anderson.
 
Ham: But this transaction
has more to do with value sensibility than  with the laws of Nature as viewed
from a deterministic perspective.
 
Mark: Certain events are shaped by the value sensibility of PA?
Events which are determined anyway as the unfolding of final cause?
This isn't working is it Ham?
Dress it up all you like but you've got a problem.

[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.

Ham: No it doesn't,  Mark.  Evolution or unfolding "knows" nothing.
 
Mark: I said, 'Essence' knows not evolution.
 
Ham: Physical
reality is the actualized appearance of Essence known only  to the observer
(man).
 
Mark: PA is of appearances not essence? It can still  be maintained that 
essence determines appearances.
Therefore, PA appears to be free but isn't.
The same old problem.
 
Ham: 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: How about, essence is an intellectual concept invented by man to  
account for what ever he thinks fit?

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.

Ham: 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.
 
Mark: How about, essence is an intellectual concept invented by man to  
account for what ever he thinks fit?

[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.

Ham: 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: Oh dear.

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.

Ham: If  I used the term "divine nature"
 
Mark: No, 'If' about it. You did. And being PA you were free to choose it.  
Apparently.
 
Ham: it was a response to your wording of a
question.
 
Mark: Am i going to have to wait another week just to have to read this  
rubbish?
 
Ham: I prefer "essence" of man (lower case, to distinguish the
creature  from the Creator).
 
Mark: PA is an essence now is it. Now look what happens next...
 
Ham: Man is created such that his awareness is
separated from his  essence.
 
Mark: Substituting: PA is created such that his PA is separated from his  
essence.
Therefore, PA is created separated from PA's essence.
That dot called PA is infinitely small is it?
But the infinitely small doesn't exist does it?
 
Ham: So, that sense, awareness is not part of his
"divine nature"; he is  estranged from his essence.
 
Mark: I think you've got a dreadful infinite regress on your hands here  Ham.
It's shockingly bad philosophy.
 
Ham: I don't know where you
get the idea that I begin and end my thesis  with rational thought.
 
Mark: From reading your thesis. You place value subordinate to rational  
constructs because values are neurophysiological states according to your  thesis.
The creator stuck a model of the whole of creation in each of our brains  and 
our little neurophysiological states provide a link between us and essence  
(this is how we value Essence)
In other words, those who can't value your thesis can be blamed for not  
being, 'on the ball' and should be dealt with to save society from sliding down  
the pan.
It's a licence for a fascistic society while spouting freedom. That's what  
you want isn't it Ham?
 
Ham: 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"?
 
Mark: No. 

[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.

Ham: I really can't fault  that assertion.
 
Mark: But earlier in this very post you made the following statement Ham:  
'I'm afraid you will have to explain to me how change can occur without  time.'
 
Ham: 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.
 
Mark: Change is experiential.
Precision changes of technological devices (Time) are experienced as a  
category of change.

Ham: 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?
 
Mark: No it doesn't.
Intellectual experience is of intellectual values and is therefore fully  
empirical.
That's why i said: Change is experiential. Precision changes of  
technological devices (Time) are experienced as a category of  change.

[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?

Ham: You're flying the Godman, Mark.  I disavow  the term.
 
Mark: You've clarified this one: PA lies on a continuum of freedom between  
matter and essence.
This leaves open the perfectly logical possibility of Angels further up the  
continuum.
 
Ham: The problem as I see
it is your rejection of a primary  source.
 
Mark: You're flogging that one for another try are you Ham?
How many times have we had this one now?
DQ - the cutting edge of reality is the source of sq.
 
Ham: Like most postmoderns, you view
it as a relic of religionism and  prefer a belief system that is tied to
empirical experience.
 
Mark: I've gone over this before, why can't you read and remember?
DQ is the source.
Religion is a social analogue of DQ.
Essence is an intellectual analogue of DQ.
 
Ham: In the tradition of materialistic objectivism, you
would have us  throw the babe out with the bathwater.
 
Mark: This is the best you can trot out after one week and some stupid  
excuse about text size?
One week mind you?
The MoQ advocates pure empiricism before ideas and sense impressions. Ideas  
and sense impressions have the same Dynamic source but are discriminated 
because  of their evolutionary relationships. DQ is the source.

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?

Ham: Not very  likely, since Essence has no properties.
 
Mark: 'Essence has no properties' is a rule in your chess game. If you say  
so, who can deny it?
Interesting to note that Essence has aspects and potentials and  
actualisation's and lots else besides when it is convenient.
 
Ham: You sound very much like
Rigel defending his rational  materialism.
 
Mark: Haven't got a clue what you are on about ham.
 
Ham: The concept of a primary source
 
Mark: The, 'Concept' of... says it all. Ham: 'I don't know where you get  the 
idea that I begin and end my thesis with rational thought.'
 
Ham: is no more difficult to comprehend or believe in than Pirsig's  Quality.
 
Mark: Please? How many times? Quality is experienced before any concepts  
like subjects and objects.
Essence, for you, is an object, and objects are conceptions for pete's sake  
man!
 
Ham: 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!
 
Mark: Quality is not a rule, it is experienced.

Ham: 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.
 
Mark: One week and daft excuses about text size and now the patronising  goes 
Nuclear.
How ironic is that?
Call yourself a noble Human being Ham?

Ham: 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
 
Mark: Low quality Ham.
Love,
Mark