[MD] The Singularity is near

[Ham Priday]

Jos --

Forgive me for the typo.  (I've never known anyone called by Jos, so the
spelling is unfamiliar to me.  I'll try to me more careful in the future.)

For your information, SA calls himself Spiritual Adirondack and came on
board here in January using his wife's e-mail handle, Heather Perella.  He
likes poetry, Buddhism, and writes stream of consciousness statements that
usually contain rhetorical questions.  You are an entirely different breed
of cat, which is why I was surprised by that uncharacteristically rambling
paragraph in your last post.


> I think I'm going to agree to disagree here, I know it's a bit
> weak not following these things right through but when I read
> all this back I see a round of statements about our own beliefs.
> Admittedly interesting, but when they seem to be so
> fundamentally at odds, it's not taking me anywhere.

Where do you want to be taken?  I'm at odds with most of the people I talk
to, but I don't see this as unusual in a philosophical forum.

> Just out of interest, how Pirsigian do you consider yourself to be?
> I think I had wrongly assumed some things, and was slightly
> misdirecting my "inquisition".

The questions you asked were an appropriate response to my assertions, and I
take no offense.  You assume correctly that I generally use the term
"Pirsigian" to distinguish my own views from those of the majority here.
This doesn't mean that I'm anti-MoQ or unappreciative of Pirsig's attempt to
overcome subject/ object reality by basing his philosophy on an aesthetic
principle.  I just don't think he's succeeded in that goal.

The reason I defined Existentialism in my last post was that I think it is a
kind of objectivism that is characteristic of the postmodernist
philosophies, including the MoQ.  Consider this synopsis from Dagobert
Runes' Dictionary of Philosophy:

"Existential Philosophy arose from disappointment with Kant's
'thing-in-itself' and Hegel's metaphysicism whose failure was traced back to
a fundamental misrepresentation in psychology.  It is strictly
non-metaphysical, anti-hypothetical, and contends to give only a simple
description of existent psychological realities.  'Existence' is therefore
not identical with the metaphysical correlative of 'essence'.  Consciousness
is influenced by our nervous system, nutrition, and environment; these
account for our experiences.  Such terms as being, equal, similar,
perceived, represented, have no logical or truth-value; they are merely
biological 'characters'; a distinction between physical and psychological is
unwarranted.  Here lies the greatest weakness of the Existentialist
Philosophy, which, however, did not hinder its spreading in both
continents."

You see, while you folks claim not to be objectivists (since Pirsig has
resolved dualism), and you are not Essentialists (because you reject a
primary source), that seems to leave you as non-materialists (Qualityists?)
who also don't believe in the reality of the individual.  Not only do
Pirsigians regard consciousness as "influenced by our nervous system and
environment", they make no real distinction between the biological level and
the intellectual level, or between proprietary awareness and the collective
Intellect.  Can you not see why the MoQ could easily be viewed as an
existentialist philosophy whose "Beingness" is Quality instead of matter?

If you disagree, please tell me why.  For the record, inasmuch as you recall
discussing my philosophy previously, Essentialism is founded on a primary
source [Essence] which is actualized as a self/other dichotomy [existence]
in which man is the free agent.  What drives the individual [self] is the
Value he perceives in the other.  If this concept of reality puts you at
odds with me to the extent that any further discussion would be unproductive
from your perspective, let me know and I will "bug off" as I think they say
in quaint old England.

Essentially yours,
Ham