[MD] Pressed Ham

[Ham Priday]

Hi David --

> 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.)

Yeah.  First it was Marsha who came up with the "Ham and cheese"
appellation; now you've introduced Pressed Ham.  We are such an inventive
lot!

It's apparent that some of you regard my views as a thorn in your sides.
And that's unfortunate because, while I'm not a Pirsigian, I see the MoQ as
a thesis in development, or at least a philosophy that is not yet ready to
assume a fundamentalist following.  As perhaps the lone renegade in this
forum, I'm offering a somewhat different perspective that (IMO) is not
incompatible with the Quality concept, yet is far more explicit in dealing
with the major issues of contention: namely, individual consciousness and
man's autonomy, space/time dimensions, teleology or purpose in existence,
the relativity of physical existence, an epistemology of Value, and the
(missing) source of it all.

I'm on record as having read LILA and ZMM -- as novels with a "message", not
as textbooks to commit to memory and quote from -- and I've studied the
author's SODV paper as well as Anthony's doctoral thesis.  You must
understand that I encountered the MoQ after forming certain conclusions of
my own, with an ontology to support them.  To accept someone else's reality
concept in his own terms is unfeasible for me, and to pretend otherwise for
the sake of conformity would be intellectually dishonest.  I'm sorry you
feel that my disagreements are "drastic"; however, your insinuation that
I've failed to appreciate Pirsig's enlightened thought strikes me as a
fundamentalist complaint.

> 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.

I don't think "imagining" reality as something other than SOM is any more
impossible than hypothesizing a primary source that transcends it.  What I'm
saying is that we live and act in a subject/object dichotomy; our knowledge
is SOM-based; the principles we use to survive and prosper in this world are
all derived from this existential reality.  Indeed, the assumption that we
are subjects in an objective world has served mankind well for some 6000
years.

Now I'll ask you a question similar to one often addressed to me.  What does
it avail us to dismiss this reality and retreat into a mystical realm of
Quality where things are imagined as "better"?  Apart from partitioning the
SOM world into patterns and levels, Pirsig has laid no guidelines that I am
aware of for connecting man to DQ or applying this theory to enhance man's
world in any practical way.  To assert that biological evolution leads to
more complex organisms says nothing about the individual or his values.

> 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.

Again, you see, there is no advantage in "overcoming SOM" unless the
proposed alternative can enhance our lives by offering some new meaning or
direction for mankind.  Perhaps I have failed to catch what Pirsig believes
this may be.  Simply saying "some things are better than others" does not
define morality, nor does it tell us what is required of the individual to
be moral (or better).  What is "better" is a subjective evaluation that will
vary from one individual to another.  I don't envision it as capable of
bringing peace and harmony to the world.  That these deficiencies remain in
the MoQ is evidenced by the discussions going on in this forum.

> 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?

I see what you mean, but like many ancient religious "truths", this is a
paganistic fallacy.  I am NOT That.  I (myself) am not the divine source of
the world.  I am separated from that source by the nothingness of existence,
and am sensible of it only through value.  If this were not so, I could not
be a free and self-determining agent capable of choosing my own reality.

Furthermore, since you have taken a fundamentalist position on the MoQ,
where does Pirsig make such an assertion?   It seems to me that he has
steadfastly rejected religious dogma throughout his writings and, despite
the Zen connection, has been rather vague on Eastern mysticism which
espouses a similar view.  Monday morning quarterbacking that would inject
mysticism into a philosophy that Mr. Prisig insists has an empirical
foundation is inconsistent and unfair to the author.  In a note to Steve
Hannon on 7/2 you said:

> What I'm complaining about, for example, is the attempt
> to alter the MOQ so as to enshrine and glorify a thing that
> the MOQ's author describes as a "ridiculous fiction".

Whether the "Thou art That" doctrine is one of Pirsig's implied truths, I
can't say.  However, I suggest that there is some truth in an old adage you
might want to consider: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw
stones.

Respectfully,
Hamilton (pressed or w/cheese)