Arlo, Why don't you do the rest of us a favor and answer Ham's ingenuous question as he suggested? As soon as you begin attacking Ham on issues that have nothing of substance and have nothing to do with the subject, you look like a complete idiot! Such a thing make this forum look like a teenage chat room.
All evidence points to the presence of a sensible agent as Ham calls it. To deny that is to put your head in the sand! (see, I can attack you without refrain, did you learn anything from that?!!) The best proof, is that thing that is looking through your eyes. Sure one can deny the existence of Self like Marsha does, but that is nonsense. Buddha used this conceptual (static) tool to enlighten, not because is was a Truth. If Buddha did not exist, what is there to reach nirvana, a non-existent nothing? If a pattern reaches nirvana, what have you got? A Free carpet? Was Aladdin riding around on a Buddha's back? How is it that we can rightfully imprison a non-existent murderer in this age? Ethics, as presented by Pirsig, is firmly grounded in the premise that we exist and that we are morally responsible for our decisions. 'Nuff said, Mark On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: > [Ham] > Really, Arlo? If you can explain experience in the absence of a sensible > agent, you'll be doing RMP and the rest of us a momentous favor. > > [Arlo] > I'm not going to waste time with your disingenous question, Ham. This is > like a flat-earther asking for "proof" the earth is round. You've rejected > any possible answer before its offered. You're not looking to understand > Pirsig, you're looking for yet another soapbox to trumpet your > "Essentialism" and its ridiculous "sensible agent". Okay, fair enough, you > disagree with Pirsig and you think you're ideas are better. Then why the > hell are you here? Why do you waste your time in a forum about a philosophy > that denounces your theism and your "sensible agent"? As far as I can tell, > about the only reason you have ever demonstrated for being here is to seek > "converts" (how's that working out for you?). > > Okay, Pirsig wrote you a letter years ago saying he saw similarities between > his metaphysics and your "thesis", but in the entire time you've been here > you have only condemned the man for not embracing your god (in effect) and > its creation of holy man (right, I'm a nihilistic atheist because I find > laughable the notion that "Essence" negated itself so its negates (us) could > worship it...). I don't care that you are here, but the only thing you do is > continuously look for people to convince them Pirsig is wrong. Given that, I > have no interest in discussing your "sensible agent" nonsense or any such > "Essentialism" theology. > > Pirsig's comments about experience are solid enough, and don't need me to > expand upon them for you. If you haven't even so much as learned the answer > to your question in the years you've been here, the fault lies with you, not > with Pirsig or anyone here. > > > > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
