Hello everyone On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Mark -- > >Mark: >> When some do not have any idea how to refute an argument, >> they will attack you personally. Has happened to me until they >> learned not to debate me. Happens to Marsha, John, and others >> who are serious about progressing MoQ. Comes with the territory.
Hi Mark You are a good guy and I like you. I appreciate that you are (no doubt) talking about me (among others). I have to say though that I didn't learn how not to debate you so much as I learned you had no interest in furthering the MOQ. Neither does Marsha. John has worked at furthering the MOQ though not in any direction which that I'm personally interested. I see Royce as a religious philosopher bent on defining the notion of God. While that take may be incorrect, it is how I see it. I'm not interested in debating anyone. That isn't why I hang around this place. I like to discuss Robert Pirsig's work but I'm not into arguing this and that. I'll share my interpretation and if someone wants to share theirs in return that's fine. I'm wrong about most things. I understand that. But that is how I learn. BTW, the last two posts of mine under the Dear Lila thread are excerpts from a novella called Tom Three Deer, the cousin of Billy Austin (which is due for publication this coming week as an e-book for Amazon Kindle edition), the novella inspired by your Dynamic Quality writing thread and John's adventures. I thank you both. It's funny. >From the few paragraphs I shared with you, five novellas have emerged with three more in the works. >Ham: > I appreciate your encouragement, Mark. What you say about "the territory" > is true, of course, and I seem to recall mentioning this caveat when you > joined up. > > But when a charter member and chief spokesman for the MD defines it as "a > forum dedicated to 'Pirsig says'," there can be little doubt that "regulars" > here view its purpose as requoting and rehashing the author's tenets and > metaphors. The ongoing month-long debate on Free Will is a case in point. > This issue could easily be resolved by acknowledging the subjective self as > the free agent of a deterministic world. Instead, arguments are built on > the "sacred authority" of MoQ which attributes freedom to an insentient, > indefinable force. Dan: You really have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the MOQ, Ham. And I believe it was you not me who defined the forum as "Pirsig says" in order not to investigate the MOQ and compare it with your own philosophy. I've been too willing to discuss any aspect of the MOQ with you or anyone who does so knowledgeably. But when you spout terms like "free agent" and "subjective self" it is clear you haven't the faintest notion what Robert Pirsig has written about in his two books. And just in case you never noticed them, here are the first two moq.discuss rules: 1) As a minimum requirement for joining the MOQ_DISCUSS mailing list members must have read LILA: An Inquiry into Morals by Robert M. Pirsig. 2) All topics and discussions must be relevant to the Metaphysics of Quality in general or some particular aspect of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values or LILA. Now, you tell me (or if you don't want to talk to me tell Mark), what are we doing here? I don't see anything about Essentialism... not one word. And reading your posts, past posts as well as this one, it is clear you haven't made any effort whatsoever to be relevant to the MOQ even in a general way. You misrepresent it at every turn. And when someone like me or dmb or Horse or Arlo or any number of contributors have tried to engage you and possibly enlighten you in some small way on the MOQ, it becomes apparent you have no wish to do so. > > While "evolutionary progress" is the traditional goal of Philosophy, as well > as Science, I see little hope that Pirsig's thesis will ever advance beyond > its present cultist phase. As much as the Pirsigians voice their abhorrence > of religious beliefs, they have in effect made the MoQ their religion. They > are content to march in lockstep with its founder. They are persuaded that > to question MoQ's inadequacies and paradoxes is nothing short of heresy. The > Word of Pirsig is to be accepted "on faith", along with its unconventional > notions of Goodness, Morality, and Freedom. Dan: Nonsense. Insulting nonsense. That's your response. And then you complain when someone treats you the same. > > Had I not introduced Essentialism to support my concepts, the "soapboxing" > charge would have been uncalled for, as would the accusation that I've never > "understood" the thesis I am critiqueing. By way of history, Bodvar was > excommunicated for expounding an original theory of Intellect which didn't > comport with the official Quality hierarchy. Tim (with whom I've had some > offline contact) was also regarded as too controversial for this dedicated > forum, and I understand that Platt was disenchanted (probably with the > prevailing collectivist sentiment of this group) and left on his own accord. > I've tried to avoid politics in my posts, focusing mainly on metaphysical > issues that to my way of thinking are, or should be, central to Pirsig's > philosophy. Unfortunately, my concepts seem to have been rejected out of > hand by all but a few "adventurous" participants. Dan: Again, Bodvar and Platt both left the discussion of their own accord. And Tim (who I also had some offlist contact) is a religious nutcase. He is completely off the wall. And that is being kind. If you found his weird posts controversial then you'd really like squonktail's antics. Maybe you could round up all the oddballs and form your own group. Your concepts are rejected because of your own failings, Ham. If you'd take the time to compare the MOQ to your own thesis, then perhaps there would be something to talk about... some sort of commonality. But you refuse. And you have consistently refused ever since you joined the group. Why? what's up with that? I don't get why a person would spend years at a discussion group dedicated to Robert Pirsig's MOQ and yet have no interest in learning about it. > > Although I still feel a certain kinship with MoQ's Value theme, and believe > I bring something useful to the MD table, I've started looking into other > philosophy forums that may be more receptive to new ideas. Meantime, if > it's any comfort to you, I do not intend to give up on the MD unless forced > to do so. Dan: Honestly, I've always thought that you do bring something of value to the discussion group. But you could bring so much more. I have made the same complaint to Mark in the past as well. And maybe it is that my expectations are too high. You are both very intelligent and likeable fellows. I hope you both stay on. But it would be most pleasant if you took an interest in the whole reason for this discussion group's existence. Thank you, Dan 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
