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

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Mark --

You don't win a debate by insulting your opponent,  Mark.
 
Mark: Hello Ham.
Do you call this a debate?
This is not a debate, it's a Ham rant.
You have either not read ZMM and Lila, or you read them so long ago you've  
forgotten what's in them.
It being that you cannot engage in MoQ discussion, you have no recourse but  
to talk about yourself. Debates are not this one sided.
At least i made a serious attempt, in a spirit of open enquiry, to read  your 
text.
 
Ham: Is that your idea
of "showing respect?"
 
Mark: Ham, friend, i don't have much respect for you period. Your conduct  
has been pretty awful.
Your ideas are interesting and stimulating to be sure, but your conduct has  
been very tiresome.
It is your ideas i respect, and i think i have shown respect in this  regard.
 
Ham: 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.
 
Mark: I certainly am tired of your ignorance. If you told me your MoQ was  
rusty at the outset i wouldn't have bothered. I believed you had an idea what  
you were talking about, and i was wrong.

Ham: 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.
 
Mark: What a hypocrite you are Ham. Dreadful for a man of your standing,  
assuming you have not lied in your biography.
I HAVE read your texts and analysed and interpreted them to my degree of  
understanding, which is what it is.
It is You who don't have a clue about my area of interest - the Metaphysics  
of Quality.
 
Ham: 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.
 
Mark: Quite shocking. You would not last five minutes in formal academia.  
They expect higher standards and some integrity.
To put it simply, this IS a forum called, MOQ.org
If you have not read the primary texts you should do so before you wish to  
engage in a serious debate.
After all, I read your primary text!

Ham: 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: If you can give me one example of my criticising you for not adhering  
to MoQ ontology i will eat my hat. Just one. Please?
I'm happy you adhere to your own views Ham - you are entitled to do  so.
And you have done so.
And i have asked questions, many of which disappears into thin air rather  
than be answered.
That isn't dialogue Ham, that's avoidance. You are a demonstrable  hypocrite.

<snip>

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

Ham: 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.
 
Mark: QUALITY IS EXPERIENCED BEFORE CONCEPTUALISATION.
This is NOT the same as a conception of Quality.
Mark the difference for me, mark it please?

<snip>

Ham: 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.
 
Mark: As far as i am concerned, your Essence is taken almost straight from  
Plotinus.
Remember that question about Angels i asked?
Remember the continuum from matter to the One?
It disappears along with all the others didn't it you hypocrite.
Dialogue, debate? Don't make me laugh.
If Essence is negated or actualised then how can you logically remove  Angels 
from your thesis?

Ham: 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: Thank figs for that! He's finally, and begrudgingly,  acknowledged how 
far removed his thesis is from the MoQ.

Ham: I  don't know about you, but I experience objects, not "patterns".
 
Mark: Look more closely. You construct objects from experience. Immediate  
experience is value.

Ham: 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.
 
Mark: I don't really care what you think much more Ham. I've read your  
responses over a number of weeks, and i find you to be one who avoids that which  
he cannot engage with in an insulting attempt to hide  his ignorance of the 
matter in hand. It's almost as bad as bare faced  lying.
You are at it again here see?
Evolution moves toward ever more freedom from static patterns. That freedom  
is a migration toward DQ.
So, when you glibly trot out your banal rubbish about 'everything'  changing, 
you have deliberately, (or stupidly)? forgotten to include evolution  as 
increasing freedom.

<snip>

Ham: 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.
 
Mark: Yes folks, he really IS this crass. This is not worth the time or  
effort.

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!
 
Mark: This summery tangles what had been separate issues. How much thinking  
went into this Ham?
I have my own ideas on that score.

Ham: 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.
 
<snip>

--Ham

Mark: I think we have both had quite enough of this.
I know i have.
It's not the ideas so much as YOU Ham.
Now that you have hit the private language barrier and are talking to  
yourself there is little more to say.
Except perhaps this: I have stated, on more than one occasion, that you are  
making up your own rules based on rules you have seen before.
That is fair enough, but others are going to come along and want the rules  
explained.
And when they read about Essence, and potential, and actualisation, and  
causation, some of them, like me for example, are going to associate all these  
terms with Substance. Because, this is exactly what substances are - they  have 
essences, and they are either potential or actual in causal  relationships.
 
In short, your Essence is a MONISTIC SUBSTANCE as far as i am  concerned.
If NOTHINGNESS is not included in Essence, then you have a DUALISM.
If you have a dualism, you don't have ONE essence do you?
Now then, is your MONISTIC SUBSTANCE material or mental?
Well, it does not appeal to experience so it is RATIONAL.
A RATIONAL MONISTIC SUBSTANCE.
Looks like idealism to me Ham.
As if you care!
 
Thanks
Love,
Mark