[MD] [MD} Ham thinks the MOQ is a form of phenomanalism

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Mark: Hello Gene.
As you may know, i feel Ham's correspondence is problematic and difficult  
accommodate.
So, i felt it was time to call it a day.
When i read this latest from Ham however, my jaw dropped.
Know why?
Whisper: Because Ham is responding to his own words.
That's right!
Look...
 
Ham: 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.

Ham: 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 take on my "position", allow me to clarify some of
the ideas that may  be bothering you.

Mark (defining Ham's position) said:
 
Mark: Now stop here a moment. The following words ARE THOSE OF HAM  HIMSELF!
That's why they are in quotation marks!

> 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: Ham's real position:
 
Mark: How can Ham claim to provide a, 'Real position' in opposition to HIS  
OWN WORDS?

Ham: 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; all that happens
in actualized  existence is a fait accompli.

Mark said:
 
Mark: No! Mark DID NOT SAY. HAM SAID!
Can you Adam and believe it?

> 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:
 
Mark: How can Ham claim to provide a, 'Real position' in opposition to HIS  
OWN WORDS?
I'm being serious: The quotes i numbered ARE HAMS OWN WORDS CUT AND PASTED  
FROM HIS OWN RESPONSES.

Ham: 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:
 
Mark: Again, all the numbered positions are HAM'S!

> 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:
 
Mark: Yet again, how can Ham respond in opposition to HIS OWN WORDS?

Ham: 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:
 
Mark: From now on, my words are ipso facto my own.

> 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.

Ham: "Loaded with  conceptions" is an ambiguous phrase.  It implies that I 
have
ascribed  specific properties or attributes to Essence, which is not true.
 
Ham on Esthesia 22-8-06:
The simplest
form of such a primary source is the "prime" form: Absolute  Oneness.  But
that Oneness must also have the potentiality to create;  that is to say, it
must be an "essence" rather than an "attribute" of  something else.  There is
no something else for Essence.  It is the  self-contained "not-other".
 
Mark: Ham: 'Oneness must also have the potentiality to create'
Now, if that is not a conceptualisation i'll be buggered with a fish  knife.

Ham: 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,
 
Mark: Ham: '...it (Essence) is the basic concept of my thesis..'
'Basic concept.' Say no more!
 
Ham: just as Quality is the basic concept of the MoQ.
 
Mark: Quality is experienced, it is not a concept.
(For the 12th time)?
Quality is prior to concepts as most artists already know.
Pigheaded is one thing, but Pig-ignorant is another.
 
Ham: But my use of
these terms does not impute "concepts" to Essence  itself.
 
Mark: Ham: '...it (Essence) is the basic concept of my thesis..'  
'Basic concept.'
'Oneness must also have the potentiality to create'
No doubt Ham will be providing a, 'Real position' for his own words at a  
later stage.

> 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.

Ham: Mark insists that I have posited Essence is an "object" or a  
"substance".
 
Mark: Ham: 02-09-2006: '...I realize that
philosophers are at liberty to  apply special meanings to common words.  I've
done this myself, of  course, and provided a Glossary of special definitions.
My dictionary also  lists Essence as a synonym for substance, and I chose
this  term specifically to avoid the connotation of material substance.'
Say no more!
 
Ham: I
seriously doubt that anyone reading my thesis, regardless of the  degree of
comprehension, would come to that conclusion.
 
Mark: Ham: 02-09-2006 'My dictionary also lists Essence as a  synonym for 
substance...'

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: 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.

Ham: Mark is annoyed that I don't posit Value as the primary  Source.
 
Mark: Mark isn't annoyed at any such thing. Mark states a fact and Ham  
agrees, thus acknowledging a prime difference between, 'Essentialism' what ever  
this may be, and the Metaphysics of Quality.
There is no need for petulance is there?
No need for sugar dumbies.
 
Ham: But no
matter how he twists "values" as sensed by man,
 
Mark: Values are sensed by all other values; The environment is a set of  
values, and living things are sets of values. Societies are sets of values and  
Intellectual events are sets of values.
 
Ham: he cannot make the case that
they are "substances".
 
Mark: Not for the first time you have been told that the MoQ is a value  
based metaphysics, and as such subordinates substance to values.
 
Ham: All differentiated entitites -- substances, objects,
events --  are finite constructs of the human intellect.
 
Mark: These terms are intellectual patterns of value. If, like Ham, you  
value substances and objects then that is what your intellectual repertoire is  
composed of. By finite, the MoQ says they are static. But all these static  
patterns can enter into Dynamic relationships (events)?
Placing the term, 'Event' in the same list as Substances and Objects may  
fool the unguarded into thinking events are equivalent to Substances and  
Objects, but this is not so.
Process metaphysics, such as the MoQ, says that Substances and Objects ARE  
processes; Process is ontologically more primary than substances and objects.  
Even rocks are merely very very slow processes.
Now, this last statement may be challenged, but it's importance for the MoQ  
is that values are the basis of all processes, and as such are not finite  
constructs of the Human intellect - Human intellect may recognise the formal  
role of value in it's very own processes; Human intellect IS a value  process.

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

Ham: This  is ludicrous.  Humans (beings-aware) are NOT "substances".
 
Mark: For Aristotle they are. No doubt about it.
Later, mind and matter are individuated as substances.
There are many prominent Aristotelian's in philosophy and you should show  
them some respect if you want some in return.
Oh, i forgot. You're a polymath know-it-all like some others we've  
experienced in this forum before, and it doesn't concern you to have to be  pleasant to 
the lower plebs like us.
I don't know what it is, but this forum doesn't half attract the  Ham-types.

> 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.  I hope this resolves some of
the concepts  you don't like about Essentialism.  If you have any other
questions  about my philosophy, I would advise that you address them to me.

Thanks  for the opportunity,
Ham
 
Mark: I think we have established one thing: Ham can't recognise his own  
words when he reads them!
If he can't recognise his own words when he reads them, how are we to  
understand what the hell he's on about?
The danger is, i'm going to stop reading his daft responses and he's going  
to start lying without my having recource to straighten him out.
Love,
Mark