[MD] Pressed Ham

[Ham Priday]

Hi Jos --



> In summary Ham, I see your system as very complete
> and well thought out, but my problem with it is you seem
> to have constructed it with a purpose in mind rather than
> allowing it to evolve naturally.

It evolved -- within me -- over a period of about three decades, and it has
evolved to some extent through my participation in this forum.  I remain
open to new ideas and suggestions, which I would think may be what you mean
by "evolve naturally".  What "purpose" do you think I have in mind other
than presenting my views?   I can assure you that I have no "hidden agenda".

> To this end you've "pruned" it throughout the years
> so that it's grown down a particular path.  IMO you want to
> "prove" self determinism and you want to set humans apart
> from any other species.  To me this is diagnostic for inbuilt
> cultural (biblical) conditioning, whether or not you see
> yourself as theistic/atheistic or whatever. If people told you
> certain "truths" as a child you are then totally unable to
> separate those from later value systems.

Yes, I think that's a fair description of a "work in progress".  Would this
be a different approach than followed by, say, Mr. Pirsig?  It would appear
that LILA was written from a "pruned down" version of the ideas in ZMM but
still following the path originally laid out in the former work.
Unfortunately, I think what he pruned from LILA was the metaphysical
framework by which one's philosophy is usually evaluated or distinguished in
the genre.  For eample, I would like to have seen a more expansive version
of his SODV paper.

Although raised as a nominal Christian, my particular "slant" has always
been that of a gnostic, and my later exposure to metaphysics put a logical
focus on my efforts.  I have never felt the need to condemn religion,
primarily because spiritualty is the value that drives mankind to seek
answers.  At the same time, I find it necessary to resist dogmatism of all
kinds.  All my tenets are presented as "perspectives" for consideration by
intelligent people, and I would hope that they don't come across as
dogmatic.

>This probably sounds offensive but I honestly don't intend
> it that way, I'm really asking you to look at your own motives
> and reassure me that I'm wrong.

Not offensive at all, Jos.  I think you have forthrightly expressed the main
objections I've been getting by "innuendo" from others here, and it is
appreciated.

Best regards,
Ham