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

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Hello Mark --

<snip>

[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.
 
Mark: Hello Ham.
'Seems' similar, but is not. We all agree it's not similar, for the  
following reasons:

> 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?
 
Mark: Quality has no conceptions, i've just told you that.
 
Ham: 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".
 
Mark: DQ is the cutting edge of experience. I've told you that as  well.

> 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.

Ham: All this says is that things as well as human beings are  patterns of DQ.
 
Mark: 'All this says...?' And ALL the theory of relativity says is that  
Energy = Mass x the speed of light squared, like this is insignificant.
Don't be so puerile ham.

Ham: Since that's an MoQ proposition, not a comparison with my thesis,  I'll 
state
the Essentialist viewpoint:
 
Mark: Are you stupid? This is very much a comparison with your thesis and  
for the following reason: Value IS reality. Your thesis demotes values below  
intellectual constructs such as Essences

Ham: All beingness (finite phenomena) is the actualized appearance of  
Essence.
 
Mark: And here you are proving that i have been comparing the two  positions. 
All beingness in the MoQ is Value, and it's not appearance it's  experience.

Ham: 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.
 
Mark: This demarcates value and essence. Can't you see that? It can't be  
more clear.

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

Ham: 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.
 
Mark: Patterns are experienced. Objects are constructs.

> 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.

Ham: Is ANYTHING created  in your ontology?
 
Mark: Everything. Ontology describes what is and what is according to the  
MoQ are values.
Your lack of imagination is shocking. It makes you appear stupid.
 
Ham: Without a "determined teleology"
there is little assurance that  reality will evolve from chaos.
 
Mark: And here your freedom lark falls flat on its arse Ham. If there is a  
determined teleology then Humans are not free.
Yes, they appear to be free but aren't.
The MoQ says Humans are free because they can be Dynamic.
 
Ham: The
animistic view that "patterns value their relationships" is a  'deus ex
machina' to account for a non-deterministic universe.
 
Mark: The MoQ is not animistic. Throwing labels about wily nily isn't going  
to help.
 
Ham: Why do you folks make
evolution the foundation of your cosmology  when you concede that "change is
experiential"?
 
Mark: Evolution is a high quality intellectual pattern of value verified by  
empirical observation.
The MoQ isn't going to abandon a good intellectual pattern, it's going to  
use it until something better comes along.
If all patterns value their relationships, and if value is awareness of  
change (DQ), then everything experiences the evolutionary process.
 
Ham: Why not admit that EVERTHING is experiential, which would
avoid the  necessity of trying to substantiate physical reality in
evolutionary  terms?
 
Mark: I already have. I really am beginning to think you ARE stupid.
You claim to have read SODV and here you will have read that fundamental  
particles exert preferences - values. They experience low level awareness. No  
need to go running off to the police screaming in a little girlie kind of way,  
'Help, help, walls and tress and burps are aware! Help, help!

> 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)

Ham: Why is the  Intellectual Level "more free" than the Inorganic Level?
 
Mark: Easy: because it is more Dynamic. And more moral.
I knew it - you really are ignorant of basic MoQ tenets. You haven't read  
Lila have you?
 
Mark: Is this
just a matter of chance, or does it have something to do  with man's
significance?
 
Mark: It's to do with evolution. Evolution is the evolution of values  toward 
DQ. Therefore the more advanced evolutionary patterns are closer to DQ  
therefore more Dynamic.
 
Ham: As you know, I'm not a "levelist"; I don't hypothesize
Intellect as  an extracorporeal realm that evolves with the cosmos.
 
Mark: There's that chasm again.
 
Ham: Like
most people,
 
Mark: Right. In philosophy, when the questions get tough, all we have  to do 
is ask the public for it's opinion:
Q. "Excuse me Sir, do you feel Intellect is an extracorporeal  realm that 
evolves with the cosmos?"
A. "Get the fuck out of my hair you asshole or i'll blow your freakin  brains 
out d'ya hear!"
 
Ham: 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.
 
Mark: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
I don't recall stating a belief in a collective intellect. The patterned  
results of unique intellectual endeavours may be found in libraries and CD-ROMS  
and are accessible to many in this regard, but the unique intellectual  
endeavours contribute to them. Conversely, unique intellectual endeavours draw  from 
the repertoire found in the Encyclopaedia in the first place - very often  
rejecting them in a Dynamic leap of evolutionary progression.

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

Ham: I don't know what language you are referring to,
 
Mark: If you had studied a bit of your Western philosophical tradition you  
would.
 
Ham: but Essentialism is most
definitely not substance-based; it's a  value based metaphysics.
 
Mark: Your notion of value is very far removed from that of the MoQ.
So far removed i have a damn good laugh whenever you state  this.

> 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.

Ham: In  my philosophy Essence is absolute potentiality, and experience is  
its
actualized mode.
 
Mark: For the love of mike, these are CONCEPTS Ham.
 
Ham: Substances (existents or essents) are objectivized values
that  represent  the actualized appearance we call existence.
 
Mark: This is NOT what the MoQ regards values to be. Values are not  
subjective nor objective in the MoQ. Your values are not primary - Essence  is.
 
Ham: 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.
 
Mark: Pigs are aware! Try and catch one!

> 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.)

Mark: This suggests that artists are  more moral than scientists and 
engineers.
 
Mark: Scientists and Engineers ARE artists. Zen and the ART of MOTORCYCLE  
(and engineering artefact) maintenance.
Go away and bloody do some reading can't you?

Ham: Did you really mean to say this?
 
Mark: Artists of all hues are more moral. This includes scientists.
 
Ham: Or am I to assume that you include
technology, engineering, medical  research, accounting, manufacturing,
marketing, farming, journalism, etc.  under "creative endeavors"?
 
Mark: There is an art to everything because art aims at Quality.
Yes, some arts are more moral.

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

Ham: f 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: I'm not a religious man, but Jesus wept. Man, as you have it, IS  
VALUE. Get it? He is MADE of value like everything else - all reality. Not the  
appearance of it.
The direction for his freedom is to aim at DQ in the MoQ.
This goes to  show how far removed your position is from the MoQ.

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

Ham: Why do you persist in telling me that my metaphysics is  substance based?
Please show me where I have suggested that.
 
Mark: Because that is traditionally what essences belong to - substances.  
You may be ignorant of your philosophical tradition, but i am not.
An essence without a Substance is pure intellect which means your  philosophy 
is not essentialism but Idealism.

<snip>

'Til later,
Ham

Mark: I'm growing very tired of your ignorance regarding the MoQ position.  
You've parasitically barged into this forum without showing any respect or  
understanding of the MoQ. For the last three weeks or so you have demonstrated  
time after time that you do not intend to recognise or acknowledge the stark  
differences in your position and the MoQ. You are fixated with placing 'Man' 
and  his freedom at the centre of everything to the point of bigotry.
I hope i have demonstrated an interest and taken the time and effort  to 
engage with your ideas and consider them thoughtfully.
You don't have a clue about the MoQ though Ham. So much for the free  thinker 
you think you are.
Love,
Mark