Hi Ham, On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi 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. > > 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.
I am sure you did. You seem to embody the patience that is needed for this forum, which I enjoy reading and contributing to since Pirsig affected my life over 30 years ago. So often are the topics derailed into personal attacks rather than intelligent debates on the subject, but this is a smoke screen. The "Free Will" and its offshoots are a good example. But there are always diamonds in the rough that can be found in the various posts. I wish I had the time to read them all, but I choose those which are addressed to me, or from those who are serious about furthering MoQ. The subject matter of this particular subject line we post under, are related to finding similarities and differences between Eastern Thought and Western Thought, but it seems we left that long ago. It would be nice if the subject matter was adhered to. > > 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. I do not want to get into personal attacks here, I do that too often. My understanding of MoQ is that we evaluate the various statements that Pirsig has made, and then either work with them and advance such sayings, or find a better way to express the underlying theory who's fundament is much deeper than MoQ. This is rhetoric, which means we need to come up with convincing analogies for the Western expression of Eastern philosophies (imo). Pirsig himself ties his thoughts to Eastern thought in many ways. Since all of this is a creation of the human mind, and since the human mind has more similarities than differences across cultures, a perennial philosophy is indeed a proper search of grail. Yes, we can say it is about what Pirsig started, but that we are finding a better way to express it; perhaps it could last the millennia. There is nothing new in MoQ, except the rhetoric. Personally I believe Essentialism ties in with MoQ much more than it disagrees. Since any metaphysics is based on agreement through thoughtful discussion, that should be our primary goal in my opinion. Providing quotes to prove one's point does nothing for me unless it is followed up with a discussion of the quote, as Dan does. For agreement to occur, honest intelligent disagreement must occur, otherwise we would all just be sheep and have nothing new to express. > > 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. The Survival of MoQ, or whatever it gets called in the future is dependent on drawing analogies from a variety of fields including philosophy, science, sociology, personal experience, and so forth. I believe it is only proper to set lofty goals for MoQ. Your dissatisfaction with MoQ may be similar to Platt's (I have no idea). I have not reached that stage yet since my only goal is to learn and expand my intellectual encapsulation of what I experience. There is, of course, no end to this for me, and I will always wish I had a little more time to keep growing. Any metaphysics with is blindly followed can be termed a religion of faith. Science creates the same ignorant following that the priests of old did. We are no smarter than before, just may a little different in complexity and views. Everything we theorize in science will some day be shown to be inadequate. My support for this is the ever being written history of science. I am not a Hegelian who thinks we have figured everything out and it is the end of philosophy or scientific re-ordering, and all that is needed is the crossing of t's. There will be revolutions that we have no idea of while we sit here in the "stone age" of science which has only just begun as a global human endeavor. As I stated in a previous post, current theories in cosmology are judged based on their beauty and elegance. At least theories in Alchemy had some basis that could be measured. Aside --(I am now fully engrossed in alchemy by the way, and attended a recent conference in Long Beach, another crazy but interesting hobby of mine. When I am ready I will present the concepts of alchemy and how they relate to MoQ. So some of my posting now may seem a bit strange). > > 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. Personally, I do not care what you call it, it is just a word. It is how you express it that is interesting to me. We all have our soapboxes, you are not alone. That you question much is very healthy and good for MoQ, for that is how it grows. Otherwise we would be stuck with Aristotelianism-like ideas that would last 2,000 years. I do not know about the Bodvar issue enough to comment. I have had a couple of communications with him outside of the forum, and he has a web site for his direction (can't remember it offhand, and I have not visited it recently). Perhaps he is a renegade, but so is Pirsig. What do we call somebody who follows a renegade? A disciple? To not follow a renegade does not mean we are happy with the status of things, it could mean than we think we have a better way of expressing things and are so called renegades ourselves. I also do not know about Platt, but I enjoyed talking to him. It seems that we shared some fundamental life changing experiences. Tim was a little too "stream of consciousness" for me. It was hard to extract the essence of what he posted. Many who post survive on the responses to their comments. Rather than ban, it is much easier to ignore. Some may have gotten useful thoughts from Tim, I am not one to make the decision of value there. I have moderated too many business meetings, and that is with only 9 or 10 participants, and are short term. I am glad that I am not a moderator here, and I have respect for those who are. > > 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. Ham, as you know I enjoy debating with you, hopefully you feel the same. This is a forum about the description of Reality. I find that your posts increase my thinking capacity. I have no need to be right, only to learn. Often I will go out on untraveled roads in the high grounds to see where they will take me. I cannot do that alone. Never say die. > > Thanks for your interest and understanding, Mark. You are too kind. We all need support at some time or another. Keep up the intellectual questions and statements. Cheers, Mark > > Best wishes, > 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/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
