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

[Gene M]

Mark, I just wanted to thank you for this one post in particular. I
think you explained, in concise and precise terms,absolutely
everything that bothers me about Essentialism. The reasons I want to
like it but can't. Beautifully done.

-Gene

On 9/24/06, Squonkonguitar at aol.com <Squonkonguitar at aol.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>