[MD] Pressed Ham

[Heather Perella]

Hello Jos,


[Jos]  Right then we understand that we use words in a
> different way. Hence the
> naming business!

     Yes, peering beyond just names.  The use of
metaphors or a pointing towards something that isn't
always clear cut when we use words/names.  This comes
up with Ham sometimes.  He seems to be very, very
literal, not much, if any, room for thinking beyond
the clear cut meaning or usage of some words, for
example:  everything means All to me.  Means All not
other, and yet, Ham looks at the word everything, sees
the word -thing, embedded in the word everything and
gets stuck on everything meaning every-thing, except
-not other.  Yet, for me, everything means All,
nothing is left out, all is accounted for, even -not
other, and All is not other, but Ham is very literal
and notices -thing and -thing does not include -not
thing, yet, I thought everything meant everything,
nothing excluded (or nothing is included, all is
accounted for including nothing, etc...) 

[Ham]
> > I have no idea what you mean by needing us "to be
> psychic"  I 
> > don't consider
> > myself pyschic; do you?

[Jos]
> On occasion, can you try empathy instead?

     Yes, this comes up, as well with Ham.  Ham is a
very caring person and very kind.  His
philosophy/thesis accounts for valuing life and
freedom.  Yet, his literalness or proprietary
awareness gets so stuck with being stuck with
individuals that 'thinking outside of himself' seems
to occur.  I know his not excluding others, but I have
also taken his descriptions to be very separated, and
thus, exclusionary in their approach where it seems
Ham is not trying to think outside of himself.  He
becomes very individualistic.  I've brought up and
still bring up the idea of how relationships manifest
new forms and identities that go beyond just
individuals being separated beings lonely way out
there away from each other.  How relationships, when
they converge, they manifest a form
developed/cultivated/built by not just concepts,
imagination, etc... but also physical exchanges that
link seemingly separated identities.  These take
account of and thus, in the end this is how I notice S
and O are not separated, but are joined in a
relationship not only called the universe, but maybe
beyond the universe, thus, including All that is
(including not other).
     S/O is hardwired in us, but this is not the end
of the hard-wiring.  They link, just as the left and
right brain link.  These linkages are relationships
and networks; and when we cultivate, develop, and
build these relationships we can name these real
relationships (empathy is a bridge builder) and soon
notice we are all connected.  What do I call this
well-connected 'thing/not-thing' when 'thing/not
thing' are noticed joined together?  What name do I
give this 'thing/not-thing, existence/nonexistence? 
Essence, Quality, Significance, Spirit, Void, etc....


     Yes, for some reason, naming and relationships
(empathy) have come up between how Ham comes across
with me, too.  Yet, from experience, I understand Ham
is kind, has empathy, and so it is his thesis that
lacks a way to bridge gaps and 'think outside of
literalness'/think metaphorically/imaginatively/take
the full meaning of everything to include All that is
(which includes All that is not), the All is not
other.  Here again, Ham notices philosophy to be very
logical, whereas, some, including myself, think of
philosophy to also mean 'way of life' which includes
'cleaning the dishes in the morning sunlight while the
birds are singing and breeze is filling the nose with
such radiance'.  I don't think Ham is wrong.  Ham just
has Ham's style.
     By the way Ham, I know MOQ doesn't tell us how
black cherries become black, as you at one time told
me your thesis cannot account for this either.  The
MOQ provides variation and debate on many issues and
lacks clarity that has years of archives being stored
deciphering what Pirsig has said/tried to say.  And
also, I see these discussions as a product of his
metaphysics.  It would be nice or more fulfilling to
have some specific questions answered at times that
have been brought up on the MOQ, but then again, if
Pirsig is just following in the footsteps of the
mythos of old where Joseph Campbell has also archived
book upon book describing how myths around the world
follow similar patterns, then Pirsig is coming at
'This' in just another form with the same formless
depth that all other myths have before, as in
Campbell's "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" testifies.
 And yet, this is my opinion, I have not heard Pirsig
talk about Campbell and his works. 

     Ham, of course I want any of your input, for I am
trying to describe your way from a limited experience
of you, namely the transactions on the MOQ.org, so I
apologize if I've stepped out of bounds anywhere.

SA 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com