[MD] The Menu/Reality issue

[Krimel]

[Ham]
A phenomenon is an observable fact or event, "an object known through the 
senses rather than by thought or nonsensual intuition."  In the macro world 
of direct experience, objects and events have quantitative attributes that 
are measurable in units of size, mass, energy, and velocity.  They are also 
exhibit some degree of predictability, in relation to other events, based on

the laws of cause-and-effect.  Science continues to document objective 
knowledge about physical reality, its components, dynamics, and properties, 
the sum total of which constitutes our universal understanding of existence.

[Krimel]
My point which you have not addressed is that you are muddling the
distinction between the philosophical notion of phenomena as internal
constructions with the physical notion of external _referents_. Size, mass,
energy and velocity are descriptions of the properties we ascribe to
external _referents_. They are descriptions of static patterns. We judge
these descriptions on the basis of their conformity to past experience.

[Ham]
Recent research into quantum physics poses some problems that are addressed 
in Pirsig's SODV paper.  They concern the inability to measure all 
parameters of quantum events, the apparent affect of the observer on the 
events, and the "split-screen" effect whereby quanta entities appear to 
behave as both particles and wave-bundles simultaneously.

For a complete discussion of the 'Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum 
Mechanics', check out the Stanford Encyclopedia website at 
http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/qm-copenhagen/:  Following is a 
relevant excerpt.

[Krimel]
Unraveling the mysteries of quantum mechanics is above my pay grade. The
Copenhagen interpretation is one way of understanding this. There are many
more and I don't have the expertise to rationally decide among them. One of
the problems with understanding physics at this level is that we do not have
senses that have evolved to apprehend quantum events. They fall outside of
our capacity to experience. 

There are a few conclusions that we can draw from these experiments though.
I would say that they suggest that there is uncertainty at a fundamental
level. It can not _in principle_ be explained away. We can corral
uncertainty down to the submicroscopic level and yet there it remains,
taunting us. This alone, in my mind, validates Pirsig and Lao Tsu's claim
that at some fundamental level reality is indefinable.

It seems to me that your "philosophy" is an attempt to make an end run
around this difficulty. You seem to believe that if you construct a
"definition" that alone will defend against the horror of the unknown. For
example your "definition" of God as uncaused causer, suffices to ease your
fear of things that go bump in the night. It is a security blanket made of
tissue paper. "Defining" God as uncaused does not answer the question of
what caused God? 

> [Krimel]
> How does one "objectivize" anything?

[Ham]
This is an epistemological question which Pirsig has not addressed, allowing

his readers to conclude that objects are either a cosmic subset of Quality 
or "static patterns" derived from an "intellectual level".  I maintain that 
Existence is fundamentally a Sensibility/Otherness dichotomy created by the 
negation of Difference or Nothingness.  In brief, Sensibility actualizes the

subjective (individuated) self as value-awareness, and Otherness becomes its

value object.  Because primary value-sensibility is undifferentiated and 
pre-intellectual, it must be made relational (as being-aware) to the 
cognizant organism.  Starting with the brain and sensory system, the 
subjective self becomes aware by integrating Value as differentiated 
phemenona (objects) arranged in space and interacting in time.  The 
"substance" of phenomena is perceived as "Being", but its essence is Value 
that is incrementally restored to the negated self in the process of 
experience.

[Krimel]
Your brief foray into plain English was refreshing but here you resort to
Hamish. You make up terms to describe well known and well studied terms. I
know it is difficult to actually research what is going on and it is lots of
fun to make up terms and pretend you are creating something original but the
processes of sensation and perception have been thoroughly studied for more
than a century now. There is no need for terms like "value-awareness"
"sensibility" and the like. This is especially true when your use of them is
so at odds with what we know from a century of serious thought and study of
the issues.

Sensory experience is NOT undifferentiated. Vision and touch are totally
distinct modes of sensation. We have no need to differentiate them. In fact
it is quite the opposite; we have to learn to _integrate_ them. 

Furthermore value-sensibility is an equally primitive function in that it is
an emotional response. We classify Value through our emotional response to
external _referents_. Some of our emotional responses are learned but many
are in born. From birth we are fearful of loud noises and pain and rejoice
at food and cuddling. 

[Ham]
This is the best I can do by way of explanation in a single post, but it 
should give you a general idea of how I view objectivization.

[Krimel]
Sorry but I don't see how you have addressed either your incompatible use of
the term phenomena or the meaning of "objectivization". But it is not like
we are on the road less traveled here.