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

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Quoting Squonkonguitar at aol.com:

> Quoting  Squonkonguitar at aol.com:

> Mark:  Hello Platt.
> I did not  write this, i think it was either David or Ham?
> Actually, i think it is  Ham.

Sorry for the false attribution.

> 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?

I got confused because someone  described phenomonolgy as "a way of describing
experience." Since metaphysics  is about reality and we know reality through
experience I concluded the two  were the same, only different in name. My 
mistake.
I'm more familiar with the  distinction between materialism (the world exists
whether we experience it or  not) and idealism (the world only exists when we
experience it.) So I thought  maybe phenomenalism was another word of 
idealism.
Thanks for helping remove  the fog from my mind.  

Mark: Hello Platt.
I think Bishop Berkley would argue that we experience a phenomenal world of  
sensations but these sensations are simply ideas in the Mind of God.
So, an empiricist like Berkley can also be an idealist too.
Hope this doesn't bring on the fog again? ;-)
The MoQ, as you don't need reminding, places Value as the primary source of  
empirical reality.
Love,
Mark