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

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Mark --

<snip>

I'll allow that definitive concepts are  inadequate.  The One is beyond
description.  As for "giving it a  name", we are already referring to it is
the One, and I see no reason why  "Source" or "Essence" is logically invalid,
inasmuch as neither is a  "descriptive" term.
 
Mark: Hello Ham.
Quality has an edge over, The One, Source and Essence in that no one can  
define Quality and yet everyone recognises it. The other three examples may be  
defined, and you place a great deal inside essence, so it's not undefined  Ham.

<snip>
 
Ham: Have you read the Creation section of my on-line thesis?
 
Mark: I have gone over it again and it's impressive.
Well done.
Your creation thesis is deductive and aims at logical consistency, and i  
think you achieve this.
I don't see any reason why it could not be taught at University level,  
assuming you have not completely ripped off another philosopher's work?
It seems you have created a good synthesis from various sources, and there  
is nothing wrong with that.
There is one enormous glaring problem though: Assume i accept your thesis  in 
toto. OK?
Now, answer me this: Why is it good?

<snip>

Ham: Pirsig also claims, by use of the "hot stove" example, that  Quality is
empirical because it is directly experienced by the subject.
 
Mark: Pirsig does not claim Quality is empirical because it is experienced  
by the subject.
You've made me go to the trouble of having to check the primary texts for  
the assertion you ascribe to Pirsig, and it isn't there.
The Claim is that Quality creates subjects and objects.
 
Ham: But ALL
experience is subjective, whether it is the sensation  produced by one's own
organism or the acquiring of statistical information  from an experiment.
 
Mark: In the event of immediate experience there are no subjects and  objects.
Subjects and Objects are deduced from the immediate event.

Ham: Where Science draws the line is with the term "empirical proof"  which
carries the connotation "universal".  Thus, the scientist would  have to
accept the subject's feeling of pain on faith or trust.
 
Mark: If values are the ground stuff of reality then the MoQ may be a  form 
of Direct realism in that all experiences are real, even dreams and  imaginary 
states (even those induced by stimulants) with which we have direct  access.
The question then becomes, why do we value science over imaginary  
experiences or pain?
The answer may be one of pragmatism.
 
Ham: The victim's
expressed complaint is factual, as is any tissue  damage caused by contact
with the stove.  These are facts because they  can be validated empirically.
 
Mark: Then Quality is a purely subjective notion for you and perhaps  science 
in general.
The difference between a Rembrandt and the wall behind the painting is  a 
purely subjective point of view with no priority.
If you conduct a poll on this matter and discover, statistically, that  
nearly 100% of those polled prefer the painting to the wall, does this mean the  
painting has intrinsic Quality beyond the subject?

Ham: The pain itself cannot be validated objectively because it is  
experienced
subjectively.  What this example actually demonstrates is  that value is
subjective.
 
Mark: What the hot stove example attempts to demonstrate is that low  Quality 
situations are experienced as low Quality situations before subjectivity  and 
objectivity.
It is only later that experience is applied to subjects and objects.

Ham: The feeling of pain does not contain within itself the object "hot  
stove".
Possibly the visual and tactile values are convertible to this object  -- 
indirectly, by the intellect.  But this is not direct experience of  an
object; it is an intellectualized image derived from these values.
 
Mark: The assertion is that we have a category called, 'Value.'
Value is immediately experienced.
A fraction later, the memory of the experience is subcategorised into  sq 
value boxes called subjects and objects:
Pain is thus attributed to the backside, and heat is attributed to the  
stove, or quality attributed to a Rembrandt and a viewer.

Mark:
>  Nor me! Look, i'm English, and after the last World Cup debacle, i
> don't  wish to hear about footballs thank you very much!  ;-)

Sorry.   Make that "rugby ball".
 
Mark: We get beaten at rugby too. :-(

<snip snip>

Ham: I'll be anxiously awaiting it.  But since you are about to  introduce 
your
own concept, be prepared to taken on Nicholas of Cusa.   I've structured my
thesis of differentiation on Cusan logic.  In case  you haven't read my
on-line thesis, here's a primer on Cusa's 'First  Principle':

<snip>
 
Mark: Don't worry, you're not going to read what i want to say and think,  
'The bastard as plagiarised my material!'
What i want to say is very simple. So simple it may be overlooked?
But the consequences may generate a bit of heat?

Ham: It has been my pleasure.  Sometimes an answer to the most  complex 
problem
can be a "little idea".  I totally support you efforts  here, Mark.
Unfortunately, I also know what you may face from the others for  venturing
where the angels of Qualityland fear to tread!

Thanks and  best wishes,
Ham
 
Mark: In my experience the reaction has been complete silence!
Sometime silence can be deafening.
 
Love,
Mark