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

[Ham Priday]

Hi Gene --


> 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.

I can't let the admission that you "want to like [Essentialism] but can't"
pass me by without correcting some of Mark's misconceptions.  Since you
quoted only Mark's statement of my "position", allow me to clarify some of
the things that may be bothering you.

Mark said:
> Ham's position:
> 1. '...what you might believe is "predetermined to happen"
> at some future time is already complete in the Oneness of Essence.'

Ham's real position:
Determinism is an intellectual construct that allows events in time to be
theorized as
the result of causal effects.  The theory is that were we to know all the
causes, we could predict all the effects.  The truth is that we can know
only some causes, most of them after the fact.  Because man does not have
foreknowledge of the consequences of his actions, he is not part of the
"causal chain" and is free to choose.  Moreover, evolution is the temporal
mode of human experience, while Essence transcends both time and space.
>From the Essential perspective, there is no past or future; what happens is
a fait complete.

Mark said:
> 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'.

Ham's real position:
Pure awareness has no essence apart from the Essential Source.  In
actualized existence, proprietary awareness acquires the value of its
estranged essence and objectivizes this value differentially, as things and
events.  In that sense, objects represent the values of his essence.

Mark said:
> 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.'

Ham's real position:
Man is free because he is an autonomous agent of Essence; that is, his
choices and decisions are not biased by absolute knowledge (which would
render him a robot.)  The teleology of Essentialism is the 'perfection' of
Essence through the extrinsic view of its Value by a conditional "other"
(i.e., the cognizant individual).  This other is conditional in that it does
not experience Essence directly, but only as represented by its perceived
values.  Hence, the true essence of Man is the value with which he
identifies.  It is this value which he "reclaims" in the life-experience.

Mark then contrasts the MoQ position:
> 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.

"Loaded with conceptions" is an ambiguous phrase.  It implies that I have
ascribed specific properties or attributes to Essence, which is not true.  I
have defined Essence in existential terms, such as "Oneness",
"potentiality", "absolute", "undifferentiated" and "immutable", in order to
convey its nature to my audience.  After all, it is the basic concept of my
thesis, just as Quality is the basic concept of the MoQ.  But my use of
these terms does not impute "concepts" to Essence itself.

> 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.

Mark insists that I have posited Essence is an "object" or a "substance".  I
don't think that anyone reading my thesis, regardless of his or her
comprehension of it, would come to that conclusion.

 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.

I don't find this any less complicated or contrived than my Philosophy of
Esssence.  Do you?

> 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.

Mark is annoyed that I don't posit Value as the primary Source.  But no
matter how he twists "values" as sensed by man, he cannot make the case that
they are "substances".  All differentiated entitites -- substances, objects,
events -- are finite constructs of the human intellect.

> In a Value based metaphysics such as the MoQ, values
> such as, 'Humans' may be regarded as substances.

This is ludicrous.  Humans (beings-aware) are not "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 concludes (again falsely):
> What we have here is a chasm Ham between your Substance
> based metaphysics and the Value based metaphysics of the MoQ.

Just wanted to set the record straight Gene.  If you have any questions
about Essentialism, I would suggest that you address them to me.

Thanks for the opportunity,
Ham