[MD] Pressed Ham

[david buchanan]

Ham and all MOQers:

Ham asked dmb:
Does "at odds with" necessarily mean "opposed to"?

dmb says:
Yes, at least in this case, they mean the same thing. There are lots of 
alternatives if you're not happy with those. I'm just saying that your 
Essentialism is incompatible with the MOQ. It doesn't add up. Square peg in 
a round hole. I'm not talking about warfare here, just logical incongruities 
and the like.

Ham said:
...I can only discuss your concepts in terms of my own.  Anything else would 
be ingenuous, if not blatantly dishonest.

dmb says:
Huh? I don't see why a person would have to be dishonest or disingenuous to 
discuss the concepts in Pirsig's books. I thought the point and purpose of 
this forum was to do exactly that. Frankly, I think there is something 
ethically dubious about pushing such a decidedly un-Pirsigian system here.

Ham said:
...You want to indoctrinate me to the MoQ way and are frustrated by my 
resistance.  Any discussion is a two-way dialogue.  If you lack the 
flexibility to consider another perspective on its own merits, we can have 
no productive dialogue.

dmb says:
Okay, I'm an inflexible, unproductive indoctrinator. Now that we have that 
settled, let's talk about the compatibility of Essentialism and the MOQ, 
shall we? Don't I have to consider your perspective in the process of 
comparing them? I mean, the idea that I've not considered your perspective 
in the context of this thread is ridiculous. I've been talking about your 
perspective and have done so in response to specific statements by you. What 
else can a guy do?

Ham asked:
...How do you see the MoQ influencing or "treating real world problems"?   
How do you see it filling the "spiritual emptiness" of our technological 
age?  And how does "putting the little self" down by
dismissing individuality cure the alienation of man?  (It would appear to 
make it only worse.)

dmb says;
Those are all very big questions. Are you sincerely interested in the 
answers?

Ham said:
I don't see acknowledging existence as a subject aware of objective reality 
to be especially problematic.  In fact, it is the pragmatic approach to life 
which you say the MoQ espouses.  There is nothing to "solve" unless one 
feels the need to comprehend reality in an absolute sense.  On the other 
hand, I don't see how "overcoming SOM" can resolve scientific, societal, or 
international problems.

dmb says:
You don't see it as problematic and there is nothing to solve? Well, when 
you add this denial of the problem to the questions you've just posed 
concerning the solutions to that problem it pretty much proves what I was 
saying about your lack of comprehension. Like I said, I don't think you 
understand the problem and the solution won't have much meaning until you 
do. I'd also point out the obvious; its not possible to accept or reject it 
until after you know what it is.

dmb had said:
On the web you could find thousand of .edu sites that use Pirsig's work with 
all kinds of applications.

Ham asked:
Could you provide an example or two -- outside of bike repair?

dmb replies:
An example or two? Sure Check out Henry Gurr's website. As I recall, he 
found about 2000 such sites with substantial reference to Pirsig's work and 
his has links to about 200 of those. The range of applications is really 
quite astonishing. But the problems associated with SOM and the solutions 
that entail philosophical mysticism are aimed at problems in the world of 
ideas. That set of issues can be described as the crisis of Modernity and is 
the kind of thing philosophers and cultural historians would examine.

Ham said:
As for Pirsig's appreciation of Indian culture (or was it the peyote?) I 
chalk this up to his interest in anthropology and his mid-western upbringing 
rather than to a serious study of mysticism.  I know he visited the Orient, 
but to be honest with you, I got no insight from his musings on mystical 
matters.  His personal reactions just seemed to distract me from the 
philosophy he was aiming for. But I take it they impressed you.

dmb says:
That cracks me up. And it makes my point. You "got no insight" from his 
discussions of mysticism and view them as a distraction from the real aim. 
I'm trying to tell you that the MOQ just isn't the MOQ without that element. 
I'm trying to explain how mysticism plays a central role.

The big questions you asked can be answered, but it would take a 30 page 
paper to do justice. If you're sincerely interested in understanding the 
central concepts of the system we're here to discuss,   I'd ask you to begin 
with something more specific and managable. I'd ask you to begin with the 
explanations and Pirsig quotes I already provided. (And were deleted from 
your response.) You asked about a very key concept (Thou art That) but 
ignored the explanation and Pirsig quote I gave as an answer, for example. 
I'll ask you to reply to that same post again, but this time around please 
pretend that you're actually interested in the answers. Its quite alright if 
you find something doesn't make sense or is otherwise objectionable so long 
as you explain specifically what the problem is. You know, instead of just 
saying "I don't agree" or "I don't understand" you should tell me WHY you 
disagree and WHAT, exactly, it is that you don't understand.

Just for example, I could say that mysticism is NOT a distraction and leave 
it at that. Or, as I have done, I could try to show you that the opposite is 
true. But to get even more specific about your perspective, I would ask what 
you think the real aim of the MOQ is. If mysticism is a distraction from 
Pirsig's aim, then what is he shooting for instead? And what makes you think 
so?

That might be a useful conversation because I think you don't see what he's 
aiming at.

Thanks.
dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/