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

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Hello Ham and Mark,

Please, don't quit  yet.  This last post by you
Mark is interesting, especially the point  you made as
follows:

"Now, the seed becomes a metaphor  for all being,
and the same  concepts which were invented for  the
seed are applied to God.
You are growing reality from abstract axioms  like an
Oak tree grows from a  tree, and it's all conceptual. 
Highly  imaginative, with allot of empirical
observation of biological entities, but  don't forget
where Nicholas de Cusa belongs Ham?  Old Nic  belongs
with the egg heads who get off on inventing new ways
of  rationalizing everything."

The part about  "...inventing new ways of
rationalizing everything" is an experience of  the
samsara world.

Ham, keep on going, as  well.  The feedback you
two are creating is an eye-opener.

SA  

Mark: Hello SA.
SA: 'The part about "...inventing new ways of rationalizing everything" is  
an experience of the samsara world.'
I had not thought about it this way before SA.
May i ask a question? Well, maybe two?
Do you think Nirvana is a move away from, 'inventing new ways of  
rationalizing everything' or should we integrate (perhaps see through) Samsara  and 
Nirvana as an unnecessary distinction, Nargarjuna style?
I have tended to think the MoQ integrates Samsara and Nirvana by using the  
DQ/sq division.
 
I don't mean to overly criticise Ham for his rationality, but Pirsig felt  he 
identified a problem with rationality grounded in Subject/Object duality - a  
problem which dissolves if one recognises Quality as the groundstuff of 
reality  rather than Subjects and Objects.
 
Love,
Mark