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

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Quoting Squonkonguitar at aol.com:


> 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.

Isn't metaphysics  phenomenalism? Or is phenomenalism another name for 
idealism?


Mark:  Hello Platt.
I did not write this, i think it was either David or Ham?
Actually, i think it is Ham.
 
Two areas may be becoming confused here:
1. Phenomenalism.
2. Phenomonology.
In a nutshell...
1. Phenomenalism treats experience in terms of sensations.
2. Phenomonology treats objects or processes of experience as  intentions.
 
Taking the example of a chair: For 1 the chair is our sensations of the  
chair, for 2 a chair as an object or process of experience is a 'chair' in  virtue 
of our cultural and psychological expectations of what a chair is; if you  
are a certain person from a certain culture and you encounter a chair it is a  
chair because you intend it to be a chair.
 
Metaphysics could be confined to sensations and sensations could  be 
construed as pure ideas.
If that is the way you wish to view metaphysics?
Love,
Mark