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

[Ham Priday]

Hello Mark --


> 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.

Everything is represented in Essence which is the source of everything.  But
Essence itself is not articulated, "multi-level" or differentiated in any
way.  So what you may see as "a great deal" embodied in Essence is simply
Ham speaking in the relativistic terms of human comprehension, not a literal
"description".  Curiously, you apparently think that not being able to
define a metaphysical concept is a plus.

Ham asked:
> Have you read the Creation section of my on-line thesis?

Mark:
> I have gone over it again and it's impressive.
> Well done.

Thank you.

> 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?

No, not completely.  I like to say I've "borrowed a little" here and there.
But you flatter me too much; there is no way that this thesis could qualify
for University level teaching.  In fact, two philosophy professors who
offered to review it and make suggestions have already bowed out.  They
don't include Bob Pirsig who at least sent me a note acknowledging our
"similarities".

> 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?

Your meaning of "good" here escapes me.  Do you mean good as a philosophy
thesis, good as a "valid" theory, or good as in "high quality"?  It's good
insofar as it has impressed you.  Other than that, I don't know how to
answer you.

<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.

That may be.  However, it's the subject, not the object, that experiences
the pain.

<snip>

Mark:
> In the event of immediate experience there are no subjects
> and objects.  Subjects and Objects are deduced from the
> immediate event.

What do you mean by an "immediate experience"?
As far as I'm concerned it means what I experience now.  All experience
occurs in the present, unless you are recalling something from the past.
And if I have to "deduce" myself every time I have an experience, I think
I'd choose to avoid them.  Suppose I miscalculated and deduced somebody
else's experience?

<snip>

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.

I wouldn't put "imaginary experiences" in the same category as pain.  We've
gone around this bush before, but I still maintain that value is realized
subjectively, which means the subject has to exist to experience it.
Scientific (objective) knowledge, as I've previously said, is significant
because it it has universal validity.  Its "commonality" does give it
practicality; it enables us to understand the universal principles of the
physical world and apply them to the enhancement of our existence.

<snip>

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?

You've lost me with the wall behind the Rembrandt.  As various estheticians
have
concluded, Beauty (or Quality) in art has both objective and subjective
correlates.
One can say that a work has artistic merit on the basis of its balance of
features,  color palette, rendering of detail, visual perspective, etc.
These are all objective criteria.  But the appreciation of its Beauty
(Quality) 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.
>
> 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.

Again, I find this epistemology incomprehensible.

<snip snip>

Ham:
> Since you are about to introduce your own concept,
> be prepared to take on Nicholas of Cusa. I've structured
> my thesis of differentiation on Cusan logic. ...

<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?

I'd be more likely to say, "the bastard has disregarded everything I said!"
Actually, I'd be honored if you were to plagiarize my material!

Mark:
> In my experience the reaction has been complete silence!
> Sometime silence can be deafening.

Well, I see that you have at least one admirer in Marsha. ;-}

Cheers and good luck,
Ham