Hey, SA --
> I don't like how Ham generalizes that we're Pirsig Parrot's > and we use a poetic talk that is not philosophy. I keep > emphasizing with Ham that his thesis is - HIS thesis, which > is fine and dandy. I like the MoQ, as I've said many times > in the past, especially to Ham due to his instance that he > KNOWS we are Pirsig Parrot's and HE KNOWS the > MoQ better than Pirsig. He talks over me, it seems, > at times. I may [get?] something back, like he copied his > thesis from other essentialists and I guess I did say this > since if one can't be creative (poetic), then they must be > copying somebody else's philosophy. Since he says one > can't be poetic (creative), then to be a philosopher according > to Ham one must be copying...... If I were a psychologist, I would conclude from these woeful complaints that your conscience is hurting and that you should take another walk in the woods. Just for the record, I have NEVER referred to anyone here as a "Parrot" -- with or without the cap "P". In fact, I've never even used the word. It was Ron who said "I'm not a Pirsig Parrot," as you now have also, so if the shoe fits, you can wear it. I have used the term "acolyte", which means "follower in the same path or group," to describe the MD participants in general. I've also suggested, here and elsewhere, that Mr. Pirsig has established something of a cult following, in the sense that his writings are constantly quoted to prove or refute the validity of the arguments debated. I think almost any outsider would agree with that assessment. I have never claimed, let alone "insisted", that I know the MoQ better than its author. That would be ludicrous. I'm sorry you feel that I talk over you. If this is true, it's certainly not intentional. I'm a "learner" here like all of you, and much of what I've learned about the MoQ has started with critical questionning. Also, I don't understand the bit about my "copying" somebody else's philosophy. All philosophers borrow ideas from from each other, which is what has sustained Philosophy as a cumulative effort through the ages. I think you misunderstand the process. You seem to be implying that this is a form of plagiarism or "cheating" on my part. I can assure you that the fundamental tenets of Essentialism are my own, and if you find them stated by someone else calling himself an "essentialist", I'd surely like to know about it. I know you like the MoQ and feel you've benefited from it, and I'm happy for you. I can even understand why a dissenter like me can be a thorn in your side. But please don't accuse me of remarks and claims that I didn't make, or take my remarks as an attack on you or anybody else. I hope we're all sufficiently grown-up to distinguish healthy criticism from personal insults. Peace, 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/
