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

[David M]

Ham

Take a look at the subject up above, it says 'phenomenology'
so we are once again confused.

David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Ham thinks the MOQ is a form of phenomenology


> Mark, Platt, David --
>
>
> Just to set the record straight, it was David M. who concluded that "Ham
> thinks the MOQ is a form of phenomenalism."   I replied that from an
> epistemological viewpoint, the MoQ is closer to existentialism.
>
> I've consulted my trusty Runes "Dictionary of Philosophy" for an
> authoritative definition of Phenomenalism.  The term is derived from the
> Greek 'phainomenon', which means "to appear".  It is the "theory that
> knowledge is limited to phenomena, including [a] physical phenomena or the
> totality of objects of actual and possible perception, and [b] mental
> phenomena, the totality of objects of introspection.  Phenomenalism 
> assumes
> two forms according as it: [a] denies a reality behind the phenomena
> (Renouvier, Shadsworth, Hodgson), or [b] expressly affirms the reality of
> things-in-themselves but denies their knowability (Kant, Comte, Spencer)."
>
> Yes, Platt; in either sense defined above, Phenomenalism may be considered 
> a
> form of Idealism.
>
> I would characterize the MoQ ontology to be along the lines of [a] above,
> notwithstanding its positing of an aesthetic reality.  That is to say,
> Pirsigians believe that physical phenomena are "patterns of Quality"
> perceived in the experience (of Quality), rather than actual material
> objects.  Epistemologically, however, they seem to be in a quandary: the 
> MoQ
> doesn't explain what accounts for the patterns we experience as real
> objects.  Is the patterning a function of the intellect or some undefined
> level of SQ, or is the "specificity" of experienced phenomena intrinsic to
> the cosmos itself?
>
> Either the specific design of the universe is an accident of unknown
> forces -- perhaps the Einsteinian energy, mass, and velocity of light --  
> or
> it's the intent of a Creator.  Pirsig does not posit a creator or any
> primary source other than Quality.  This would be solipsism if it were not
> for the fact that the author has made Intellect and Consciousness
> "universal" factors, as opposed to cognizant functions of the individual
> subject.  If you substitute Being for Quality in the MoQ thesis, it would 
> be
> Existentialism.
>
> It is my opinion that the MoQ and Essentialism are both phenomenologies
> because they both theorize physical reality as "appearance".  For me, the
> design of the universe is a metaphysical principle: it is the space/time
> appearance of reality that occurs when awareness is negated from Essence.
>
> But since it was David who raised the question, I assume he and I are both
> curious as to where you folks stand on this issue.  This may be the kind 
> of
> question that Matt Kundert is best equipped to answer.  (Is he still with
> us?)
>
> 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/
>