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

[David M]

anyone interested in the difference between a phenomenologist
and a phenomenalist should try dictionary.com

Ham

Like you I wonder what others think.

regards
David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Ham thinks the MOQ is a form of phenomenology


>
>
>
> Hi David --
>
>
>> 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?
>
> I appreciate your willingness to consider this viewpoint, and it will be
> most interesting to see how the group responds.  I don't think it is
> detrimental or derogatory to the MoQ to regard it as a form of
> phenomenalism.  Indeed, many scientific luminaries have presented similar
> views of Reality.
>
> The major difference in Existentialism is that existentialists regard
> "Being" as the Source.  Thus, Heidegger's "being-in-the-world [Dasein] and
> Sartre's "Being-in-itself/being-for-itself" dichotomy.  I view this as
> turning Reality inside out, making substantive "otherness" the Source.
> Regrettably, by "externalizing" Intellect and Consciousness, Pirsig also
> leads in this direction, while at the same time making the Source
> non-substantive Quality.  I would say that his ontology is that of a
> phenomenalist but his epistemology is existentialist.  But I'm sure that
> we'll see other interpretations here.
>
> Thanks, and best regards,
> 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/
>