[MD] Pressed Ham

[Ham Priday]

SA --


Ham said to Platt:

> I owe DMB some additional answers, now that he
> has asked me "to participate in a conversation about
> [the] incompatibility."  Of course, he also expects my
> defense to be based on "quotes and explanations [HE]
> has provided."

SA says:

> This has been the difficulty all along for you
> Ham.  Some people make some comments to you, and
> quickly their comments are perceived by you to be not
> worth your time and/or thesis, so you don't
> reciprocate with comments and just end the
> conversation, at times.

That's really an unwarranted criticism, SA.  I may not respond to every
message mentioning my name; however, I do make an effort to answer all
messages addressed to me.  And, however it may seem to you, I've never
refused to talk to somebody because I felt "it was not worth my time."  I'll
admit there have been times when, confonted with an irreconcilable deadlock,
my opponent and I will mutually agree to terminate the debate.  But these
are rare, and such is not the present case with DMB.  He simply feels I'm in
violation of the MD rules of participation.  If his charge is supported by
the group, I shall have to quit.

Now what qualifies as "reciprocation" in these dialogues would seem to be a
matter of subjective interpretation.  A philosopher should not be expected
to explain his thesis in someone else's terms, to fit their particular
viewpoint.  That's like trying to explain democracy by the standards of the
Koran.  You say my "comments always tend to venture back to my thesis."
Well, the majority here tend to respond to my comments by quoting Pirsig.
Just who is "reciprocating"?

Platt said:

> I see your contributions to this site extremely
> valuable because they challenge the reigning
> orthodoxy."

To which you responded:

> This implies a difference in your thesis,
> approach, and perspective, Ham.

Certainly it does.  I am offering a new perspective -- I make no bones about
that -- one that conceivably could expand the MoQ theory of Quality so that
it might resolve some fundamental metaphysical questions.  But I need the
freedom of expression to lay it out.  That means redefining some special
terms and shelving, for the purposes of exposition anyway, the level/pattern
language to which you all have habituated yourselves.  If that's asking too
much, don't I have a right to know it up front?

SA:

> Debate, implies difference of opinion.  Thus, dmb
> notices this, as well.  He may not be explicitly
> complimenting your ego with such comments as
> "...hid[ing] their own intellectual inadequacies..."
> as mentioned in the above quote by Platt.  But surely
> you notice the incompatibility and will take up the
> endeavour ...

I intend to do so after taking the pulse of a few more participants

> I probably don't have all the beliefs of the
> MOQ, as well, and probably add my own beliefs that go
> outside of what the MOQ covers.  So I am probably not
> a strict adherer to MOQ, and any opinion outside of
> the MOQ, in my opinion, would provide unique angles to
> shed dharmakaya light upon our world.  So Ham, don't
> think we are trying to kick you out of the MOQ.org.

Okay.  I won't think it until I'm told that it's true.

Regards,
Ham