From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Sun Aug 15 2004 - 09:05:23 BST
----- Original Message -----
Ham's reply to Mark Steven Heyman, August 14
Re: MD Metaphysics of Value
Mark, may I correct some of your conclusions and add some comment concerning
your effort to dismiss my philosophy on grounds that it offers nothing new?
You say:
> In response to Ham's contention that his concept of Immanent Essence
> is an original metaphysical contribution, I pasted his thesis into my
> word processor and replaced "Immanent Essence" with "Dynamic
> Quality"; I also replaced the single word "immanent" with "dynamic"
> and the single word "Essence" with "Quality." For those of us
> familiar with the MOQ, this results in NO significant change in
> meaning. I invite others to perform the same replacement and see if
> they agree.
That's a fascinating way to analyze a thesis, and it avoids having to read
it for the meaning intended. I would imagine that a variety of terms could
be substituted for the original, and you would still end up with a
consistent essay. But your substitutions don't make sense. For example,
the word "immanent" (meaning "in the mind" as opposed to "in the objective
world") does not relate in any way to "dynamic" (continuously active or
changing), nor should it need to. Also, I do not equate Essence with
Quality [Value] because Value is only a conditional (finite) aspect of
Essence. Despite the fact that I have chosen my terms carefully, and even
provided a glossary as reference to my usage in this thesis, you have
misconstrued much of what I have said.
>
> This is not to say that there is no difference between the two
> philosophies. Ham's metaphysics is a not so thinly disguised theism.
> This is clear form Ham's most recent exchange with Platt (relevant
> portions pasted below), as well as from his talk of a "Master Plan"
> and a "Creator" and freedom as a "divine gift" to man. Ham's theism
> is further revealed in his thesis's closing paragraph, where we are
> admonished to pick the God side of Pascal's wager. Though some will
> say such a choice is prudent, it's always seemed to me the route of
> the intellectual coward.
I am not an atheist, and would not object to being called a "theist" if were
an accurate label. Runes Dictionary defines "theism" as "a conception of
God as a unitary being"; inasmuch as I consider "beingness" a construct of
man's mind that separates him from the ultimate reality, I reject the notion
that it applies to Essence. In the "Freedom" essay I use the terms "master
plan" and "divine gift" euphemistically in order to hypothesize the
perspective of the Creator. I have not "admonished" the reader to choose
God; I quoted Pascal who suggests that it is the winning side of the gamble.
And, whatever has possessed you to regard belief in God as the mark of a
"coward"? Considering the age we live in, professing such a belief would
seem to call for an act of courage! (At least you've shown a modicum of
respect for my "intellect".)
> Despite the fact that "Quality" and "Essence" are interchangeable in
> Ham's written thesis,
Again, that is not true. The Value referred to my thesis is man's
psycho-emotional sensibility to Essence; hence I've said that "Value is the
essence of man's reality". But they are not equivalent in my concept. I
don't know how Quality relates to an "a prori source" in Pirsig's philosophy
because he hasn't presented us with one.
> Ham insists that Quality is secondary to
> Essence, and that "Essence is the uncreated, undifferentiated and
> absolute Source that most people would call God." According to Ham,
> Pirsig would have a complete metaphysics if he would only "accept
> Essence as the source of Quality."
>
> But setting Essence above Quality serves no metaphysical purpose,
> other than to make room for a "Creator" with a "Master Plan" which
> includes freedom as a "divine gift" to man. Saying that Quality by
> itself doesn't have the gumption to bootstrap it's own existence, but
> that Essence does, is just a word game searching for the "Primary
> Mover." As we all know the "Primary Cause" argument for the
> existence of God fails because all it succeeds in doing is extending
> the causal chain infinitely backward. In other words setting Essence
> above Quality complicates the metaphysics, without adding any
> explanatory value.
How about teleology, which is "purpose" itself, Mark?
It may be poetic license to claim that Quality = Reality = Experience =
Value = Morality, and it resonates with our emotions; but what does it mean?
Are we going to play guessing games with such statements for the rest of our
lives? Speaking for myself, I would like to end the speculation by
assisting in the development of a dialectically complete, workable, socially
relevent, valuistic exposition for a Metaphysics of Quality -- even if
Quality is the word used to designate its "essential source". I offer my
thesis as the beginning of such a project.
Essentially yours,
Ham.
> InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
> Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
> Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 15 2004 - 09:06:14 BST