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

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

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.
 
Mark: Hello Ham and David.
The MoQ may be compared favourably with the phenomenalist tradition.
Indian thinkers such as Nargarjuna and Western thinkers such as  
Merleau-Ponty and Hussurl have explored the pre-intellectual.
The MoQ advances on these views by explicitly stating the pre-intellectual  
is Value.

Ham: 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.
 
Mark: The MoQ regards value as the experienced source preceding concepts  
such as being and dichotomies.
 
Ham: I view this as
turning Reality inside out, making substantive  "otherness" the Source.
 
Mark: This is meaningless in terms of pre-intellectual value.
Here, there are no concepts of other.

Ham: Regrettably, by "externalizing" Intellect and Consciousness,  Pirsig also
leads in this direction, while at the same time making the  Source
non-substantive Quality.
 
Mark: The process described here is a result of a Western rationalist  
deductive bias. The MoQ undercuts this bias by exploring value directly before  
concepts such as subjects and objects.
 
Ham: 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
 
Mark: I would like to see this last sentence expanded upon. I am not sure  
what it means?
Love,
Mark