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

[Ham Priday]

Mark --

> Are you stupid?
> I really am beginning to think you ARE stupid.
> 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.
> Love,
> Mark

You don't win a debate by insulting your opponent, Mark.  Is that your idea
of "showing respect?"  If you are tired of my ignorance, then move on to
someone who can quote LILA verbatim, since you're apparently only willing to
talk to the indoctrinated.

When I discuss philosophy with someone with a different perspective, I don't
demand that he be a student of my philosophy, but I do expect that he will
be sufficiently open-minded to consider my views.  I restrict my comment to
your views as YOU present them, not as they may have been explicated by
another author in a different context.

You continue to make assumptions about Essentialism based on concepts
defined by the Idealists, ignoring my own definitions while criticizing me
for not adhering to Pirsig's ontology.  This is a dialogue, Mark, not a
final exam.  If you're not willing to exchange views with me in a free and
civil discussion, then it's a waste of our time and energy.

Mark:
> 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.

Ham:
> Why not?

Mark:
> Quality has no conceptions, i've just told you that.

That statement defies analysis.  Certainly one can have a conception of
Quality or Essence without imputing properties to them.  If such entities
were inconceivable, then it would be impossible to theorize the MoQ or
Essentialism.

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.

"Throwing labels about willy nilly isn't going to help", you said.

Mark:
> 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.

I'll return the question by showing that you have misconstrued my thesis to
conform to what Plato and Aristotle said about "essences".  There are no
"essences" in my thesis.  Essence is singular -- absolute Oneness.  Anything
else is a negation or actualization of Essence (e.g., "essent" or
"existent").  Value is an essent, not an intellectual construct.  The
construct is the objectivized "being" that we experience.

 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.

Appearance is what we experience.  What we experience is the beingness
intellectualized from Value sensibility, as I said previously ...

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.

Essence is absolute, cannot be demarcated (differentiated), and cannot be
experienced.  So, yes, Value isn't Essence (I never said it was); it is the
individual's affinity for its estranged Essence.  It's this attraction by
which
man becomes aware of beingness.

Mark:
> 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 patterns objectivized?  My ontology
> offers an explanation for this; the MoQ does not.

Mark:
> Patterns are experienced.  Objects are constructs.

I don't know about you, but I experience objects, not "patterns".  If you
insist on calling them patterns, it's OK by me, so long as they mean the
same thing.

Mark:
> 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.

Everything in existence is "dynamic" in the sense that things are subject to
change.  This doesn't make them "free"; it makes them transient, like waves
rushing to the shore.  I find "they can be Dynamic" an odd and inadequate
description of human freedom.

 Ham:
> The animistic view that "patterns value their relationships" is
> a 'deus ex machina' to account for a non-deterministic universe.
[snip of exchange quoted above]
> 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.

Evolution is "high quality" ONLY if you lock your ontology to a space/time
universe.  That's logical positivism, of course, which Pirsig feels
compelled to follow.
>
> Ham: Why not admit that EVERTHING is experiential, which would
> avoid the  necessity of trying to substantiate physical reality in
> evolutionary  terms?

[snip, comments on particles "exerting" preferences, etc.]

Ham:
> Why not admit that EVERTHING is experiential, which would
> avoid the necessity of trying to substantiate physical reality in
> evolutionary terms?

Mark:
> Easy: because it is more Dynamic. And more moral.

There's a tautological argument if I ever heard one!

 Ham:
> 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.

 Mark:
>  Right. In philosophy, when the questions get tough,
> all we have to do is ask the public for it's opinion ...

Ham:
> 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 be it.

Mark:
> 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.

And Quality as an undefined source, particles exerting preferences,
Intellect as a level rather than a brain function, Freedom = Dynamic, and
Humans as substances are not concepts?  My, my...how hypocritical some
MoQers are!

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.

Sorry about that.  I guess that means Essentialism is not the MoQ.

> Your values are not primary - Essence is.

That is correct.  Values are not primary -- they are pre-intellectual.

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!

Pigs are also beings-aware.  But pigs are not free to choose their values.

Mark:
> 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.)

Ham:
> 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?
[snip]
> There is an art to everything because art aims at Quality.
> Yes, some arts are more moral.

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

 Ham:
> 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:
> 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.

Ham: I guess that means Essentialism is not 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.

See?  You refuse to accept that fact that I'm NOT a traditionalist.  I do
not
blindly follow the idealists' view that "essences" are the "true,
unperceived nature
of things".  Essentialism is a new ontology; it holds that everything is
derived from One Essence.  Repeat with me three times:
Essence is not substance.
Reality is not substance.
Cognizant Humans are not substance.

Mark:
> 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.

I can assure you that I'm not ignorant of the tradition.  I simply choose to
follow
my own "intuitive reasoning".  You obviously cannot bring yourself to accept
or even consider a philosophy that is not traditional or not authored by Bob
Pirsig. That's pretty narrow-minded for a philospher, Mark -- maybe even a
tad "pig-headed".

--Ham