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

[Ham Priday]

Hello Mark --

You have provided a neat, if somewhat biased, 7-point comparison of
Essentialism with the MoQ which I assume I'm supposed to critique.  (To save
space, I'll refer you to my last post for the Ham tenets.)  Here are my
comments on your conclusions.

[Mark]:
> The MoQ position contrasted with Ham's position:
> 1. Essence seems similar to the Quality of ZMM.

That everyone seems to agree on, including ZMM's author.

> 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.

Why not?  If DQ is "prior to Humans" (as you say in 2 below), and "DQ is the
source" that is prior to patterns and intellectual constructs, as you claim
later, then it must also transcend time which, according to you, is either
an intellectual construct or a "Human invention".

> 2. Differentiations may be described metaphysically.
> The MoQ describes differentiations 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.

All this says is that things as well as human beings are patterns of DQ.
Since that's an MoQ proposition, not a comparison with my thesis, I'll state
the Essentialist viewpoint:
All beingness (finite phenomena) is the actualized appearance of Essence.
Beings are objectivized (created or negated) from Essence by the
incorporation of their value into awareness which IS detached from Essence
as a free agent.

> 3. Metaphysically, DQ is Human's essence. DQ is the essence
> of sq.  However: DQ is NOT an object.

If neither sq nor DQ is an object, and objects are patterns of DQ, how are
these sq patterns objectivized?   My ontology offers an ontology for this;
the MoQ does not.

> 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.

Is ANYTHING created in your ontology?  Without a "determined teleology"
there is little assurance that reality will evolve from chaos.  The
animistic view that "patterns value their relationships" is a 'deus ex
machina' to account for a non-deterministic universe.  Why do you folks make
evolution the foundation of your cosmology when you concede that "change is
experiential"?   Why not admit that EVERTHING is experiential, which would
avoid the necessity of trying to substantiate physical reality in
evolutionary terms?

> 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)

Why is the Intellectual Level "more free" than the Inorganic Level?  Is this
just a matter of chance, or does it have something to do with man's
significance?  As you know, I'm not a "levelist"; I don't hypothesize
Intellect as an extracorporeal realm that evolves with the cosmos.  Like
most people, I regard intellect as the calculating or structuring function
of cognizance -- the cerebral processing of value-sensibility.  I think you
strain credulity and demean the individual by forcing the notion of a
collective Intellect.

> 6. This statement uses the language of a Substance based
> metaphysics which subordinates value to Substance.
> The MoQ subordinates Substance to value.

I don't know what language you are referring to, but Essentialism is most
definitely not substance-based; it's a value based metaphysics.

> 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.

In my philosophy Essence is absolute potentiality, and experience is its
actualized mode.  Substances (existents or essents) are objectivized values
that represent  the actualized appearance we call existence.  Humans are a
species of creature otherwise known as Homo sapiens.  Man is the
individualized human with the capacity for awareness; in other words, a
being-aware.

> 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.)

This suggests that artists are more moral than scientists and engineers.
Did you really mean to say this?  Or am I to assume that you include
technology, engineering, medical research, accounting, manufacturing,
marketing, farming, journalism, etc. under "creative endeavors"?

> Therefore, Humans do not reclaim what exists but
> create new reality which has hitherto not existed.

If this is meant to refute something I said, let me set the record straight.
Man does not reclaim "what exists".  He reclaims his value, which is not an
existent but his affinity for Essence.  Man creates (i.e., intellectually
constructs) the appearance of ALL physical reality -- old as well as new.

Mark:
> What we have here is a chasm Ham between your Substance
> based metaphysics and the Value based metaphysics of the MoQ.

Why do you persist in telling me that my metaphysics is substance based?
Please show me where I have suggested that.

> Now to deal with your tedious post...

I've covered the seven points of comparison above, and it's running far too
long.  I'll save you the tedium by postponing the rest to a later time.
Actually, it is you who has resorted to this extended format.  I'm only
carrying it through in my responses.  You may recall my suggesting that we
discuss one point at a time.  This would avoid a lot of duplication,
including repeated assertions made by each of us.  As it is, you're
straining the Horse that has to pull all this text to the starting post.

'Til later,
Ham