[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[Ham Priday]

Hello Arlo --


[Ham, to Platt]:
> However, speculating on the "motive" for Creation
> is beyond the capacity of human reasoning.

[Arlo, obviously energized]:
> Really? Really?? You have hundreds of pages of "speculation"
> on your Essence and yet this one thing is "beyond" your capacity
> to even speculate?

There's Arlo again, pressing me for proof of an intangible that he doen't 
even believe in!  "The facts...just the facts, m'am."

If I had said "SPECIFYING the motive," rather than speculating on it, would 
it have made any difference?  The fact is that Absolute Essence is incable 
of description, since all description applies to relations and attributes of 
finite existents, and Essence is not an existent.  Certainly I am not 
opposed to speculation: it is the method of philosophers, and it goes on 
here constantly.  Again, I repeat that my cosmogeny is a hypothesis; it 
can't be proved by objective science, logical analysis, or intuitive 
speculation.  The absolute source of our existence is known only by its 
relative value to the knower. Anything else is speculation.

>This reminds me of our previous dialogue when I asked if there existed a 
>time deep in human history, in some distant
> primate line, when consciousness did not exist. You said, "yes". Fair 
> 'nuf, I said, since that is your claim, then I ask
> "what changed?" Since you had emphatically denied that
> the appearance of consciousness was biological (due to some genetic 
> mutation) or social (due to human interactions),
> and yet being obvious that _something_ had to change, I asked "what?" 
> Although you were quite comfortable denying what it could be, when pressed 
> (and facing the
> realization that your only option was to admit outright that
> "Essi-god poofed consciousness into man") you tried to fall back behind a 
> string of ridiculous "that's beyond my ability to answer" rhetoric. Maybe. 
> But yet you were quite comfortable in unequivocally denying certain 
> possibilities (apparently answering is not wholly beyond your ability, 
> since you are able to discern what could not be the reason).
> And then in a second line of questioning, where you claimed
> succinctly that "consciousness evolves" over the history of
> the species, I asked simply "how?" You denied again that
> it was biological (genetic transference from parent to child),
> and that it was social (latter generations being born to a greater social 
> milieu), and yet _something_  has to be transferred between generations 
> somehow for "consciousness"
> to evolve. Why the only other option would be that "Essigod"
> simply bestows new and updated models of consciousness on subsequent 
> generations of humans, an option you (correctly)
> realized reveals the God in your "metaphysics". So, again, while
> you were happily and clearly able to "speculate" about all the
> things it could NOT be (since those things support ideologies
> opposed to your own), you get strangely "I can't speculate on
> that" when you realize that presenting what it COULD be.
> Why is that? (That's rhetorical, of course). I wonder if the same
> applies here? ...

The only way I can survive this inquisition with my integrity intact is to 
convince you that only finite entities are describable.  Finite entities are 
phenomena that are experienced in space/time and perceived differentially. 
Existence is finitude.  All your Pirsigian "levels and patterns" relate to 
finite existence, as do thoughts, concepts, numbers, values (qualities) and 
cause-and-effect principles.  Even Arlo is a finite being-aware.

Thus, your question "what changed?" must be answered in terms of evolution 
and process, which is the biological or genetic answer.  Anything that 
"evolves" is dynamic, provisional, and experiential.  From a metaphysical 
perspective, nothing changes because Essence is immutable.  This means that 
creation is not an act that takes place in time and proceeds from alpha to 
omega.  Rather, it is the actualized "modality" of Essence, in the same way 
that Value, Difference, and Individuation are (intellectualized) modes of 
experiential reality.

> Obviously, you attribute the creation of "man" to assuage a
> certain "need" in Essence, if not directly that at least hold that
> "autonomous agent" as a special creation deliberately enabled
> to "discern value".  And while I see you suddenly realizing the
> need to bolster allegiances, and (happily) backing away from
> the narcissism of a need-to-be-loved Essigod, you still have yet to 
> honestly and directly answer another of my questions, did the "plan to 
> make man" precede man's existence?

Absolute potentiality has no "need" for man or plans.  The free agent 
(being-aware) is a 'parts-and-parcel' attribute of its perfection.  In that 
sense, all creation is "special".  So your question about a "plan preceding 
man's existence" is meaningless, despite whatever teleology or "intelligent 
scheme" we make of it.  Your phrase "the narcissim of a need-to-be-loved 
Essigod" reveals your contempt for the concept of a primary source.  The 
point I was making to Platt is that, while we are all value-sensible 
creatures, we are free to conclude that existence comes from nothing, or 
that it is the differentiated mode of an uncreated source.  As a free agent 
of value, that choice is yours to make.

I have addressed your questions as honestly and directly as I am able. 
However, I cannot assume responsiblity for what is incomprehensible or 
philosophically unacceptable to you.

Regards,
Ham