[MD] Ham thinks the MOQ is a form of phenomenology

[David M]

Hi

I would agree that it is possible to argue with reason that the MOQ
is a form of phenomenlogy, i.e. a way of describing experience
(existentialism is a bit different I'd suggest). Would anyone
see a case against this?

David M



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The Singularity is near


>
> Jos --
>
> Forgive me for the typo.  (I've never known anyone called by Jos, so the
> spelling is unfamiliar to me.  I'll try to me more careful in the future.)
>
> For your information, SA calls himself Spiritual Adirondack and came on
> board here in January using his wife's e-mail handle, Heather Perella.  He
> likes poetry, Buddhism, and writes stream of consciousness statements that
> usually contain rhetorical questions.  You are an entirely different breed
> of cat, which is why I was surprised by that uncharacteristically rambling
> paragraph in your last post.
>
>
>> I think I'm going to agree to disagree here, I know it's a bit
>> weak not following these things right through but when I read
>> all this back I see a round of statements about our own beliefs.
>> Admittedly interesting, but when they seem to be so
>> fundamentally at odds, it's not taking me anywhere.
>
> Where do you want to be taken?  I'm at odds with most of the people I talk
> to, but I don't see this as unusual in a philosophical forum.
>
>> Just out of interest, how Pirsigian do you consider yourself to be?
>> I think I had wrongly assumed some things, and was slightly
>> misdirecting my "inquisition".
>
> The questions you asked were an appropriate response to my assertions, and 
> I
> take no offense.  You assume correctly that I generally use the term
> "Pirsigian" to distinguish my own views from those of the majority here.
> This doesn't mean that I'm anti-MoQ or unappreciative of Pirsig's attempt 
> to
> overcome subject/ object reality by basing his philosophy on an aesthetic
> principle.  I just don't think he's succeeded in that goal.
>
> The reason I defined Existentialism in my last post was that I think it is 
> a
> kind of objectivism that is characteristic of the postmodernist
> philosophies, including the MoQ.  Consider this synopsis from Dagobert
> Runes' Dictionary of Philosophy:
>
> "Existential Philosophy arose from disappointment with Kant's
> 'thing-in-itself' and Hegel's metaphysicism whose failure was traced back 
> to
> a fundamental misrepresentation in psychology.  It is strictly
> non-metaphysical, anti-hypothetical, and contends to give only a simple
> description of existent psychological realities.  'Existence' is therefore
> not identical with the metaphysical correlative of 'essence'. 
> Consciousness
> is influenced by our nervous system, nutrition, and environment; these
> account for our experiences.  Such terms as being, equal, similar,
> perceived, represented, have no logical or truth-value; they are merely
> biological 'characters'; a distinction between physical and psychological 
> is
> unwarranted.  Here lies the greatest weakness of the Existentialist
> Philosophy, which, however, did not hinder its spreading in both
> continents."
>
> You see, while you folks claim not to be objectivists (since Pirsig has
> resolved dualism), and you are not Essentialists (because you reject a
> primary source), that seems to leave you as non-materialists 
> (Qualityists?)
> who also don't believe in the reality of the individual.  Not only do
> Pirsigians regard consciousness as "influenced by our nervous system and
> environment", they make no real distinction between the biological level 
> and
> the intellectual level, or between proprietary awareness and the 
> collective
> Intellect.  Can you not see why the MoQ could easily be viewed as an
> existentialist philosophy whose "Beingness" is Quality instead of matter?
>
> If you disagree, please tell me why.  For the record, inasmuch as you 
> recall
> discussing my philosophy previously, Essentialism is founded on a primary
> source [Essence] which is actualized as a self/other dichotomy [existence]
> in which man is the free agent.  What drives the individual [self] is the
> Value he perceives in the other.  If this concept of reality puts you at
> odds with me to the extent that any further discussion would be 
> unproductive
> from your perspective, let me know and I will "bug off" as I think they 
> say
> in quaint old England.
>
> Essentially yours,
> Ham
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>