[MD] Pressed Ham

[david buchanan]

Ham said to Jos:
I'm at odds with most of the people I talk to, but I don't see this as 
unusual in a philosophical forum. ...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.

dmb says:
Yea, there is nothing unusual about disagreements in a forum like this but I 
think the situation is more drastic than that in your case, Ham. And yea, it 
wouldn't be fair to say you're anti-Pirsigian but I don't think you 
appreciate his attempt either. In fact, I think that's exactly why it would 
be unfair to characterize you as anti-MOQ; because you don't appreciate it 
well enough. Several times I have asked if you have ever even read Pirsig's 
books because there is no sign of that in your posts. (If you ever responded 
to my complaints, I missed it.) Here's what I mean...

Ham continued:
...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?

dmb says:
See, you had expressed an appreciation of the MOQ's attempt "to overcome 
subject/object reality" in the first paragraph but in this next one you are 
struggling to locate the MOQ within that very same reality. You see, 
everything from Objectivity to Existentialism to Positivism is more or a 
less a matter of making some choices WITHIN a subject/object reality. This 
is why "folks claim not to be objectivists" and why they "also don't believe 
in the reality of the individual", which would make them subjectivists of 
some kind. Its not that the MOQ denies them altogether, but it does deny 
that experience is caused by the interaction between subjects and an 
objective reality. This is the central assumption common to all the rival 
schools. And the MOQ says that it is exactly that; an assumption. Its so 
deeply ingrained in our culture that its difficult to image anything else is 
possible, but that what the MOQ says and I think that's exactly what you 
don't appreciate. Not yet, anyway.

Ham wrote to Jos:
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.

dmb says:
See, the problem is that your Essentialism is essentially an SOM view. You 
are dishing up the very thing that the MOQ seeks to overcome. Essentialism 
is predicated on the very assumptions that the MOQ overturns. The self/other 
dichotomy is the very essence of SOM. That's why you're at odds around here. 
You're offering rare steaks to a bunch of vegans, dude. You're offering to 
buy a round at an AA meeting. You're shouting "white power!" at the 
headquarters of the NAACP and otherwise trying to provide the very thing we 
do not want. That's why I wonder if you've really read Pirsig.

Think of it this way. The ancient religious truth saying "Thou art That" is 
not just a rejection of the distinction between humanity and the divine, its 
a rejection of that more secular dualism too. The distinction between 
subject and object is also overturned by that same idea; thou art that.

See what I mean?

dmb

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/