From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Aug 15 2004 - 12:46:47 BST
Ham
In case you do not know there is a school
of thought started by Roy Bhaskar called
transcedental dialectical critical realism.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: <hampday@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2004 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: MD Metaphysics of Value
>
> ----- 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
>
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 - 18:08:24 BST