[MD] Ham & swiss cheese

[Ham Priday]

Scott (and all) --

> Of course Ian is correct that it is the static baggage
> of theism (and other religions, and atheism) which is
> the problem. But there are many theists who are very
> much aware of that static baggage, and want to do
> something about it, but who get excluded from the
> conversation by those who share Pirsig's attitude.
> In this case, it is Pirsig who is carrying around
> some static baggage.

As the Ham of current swiss cheese fame who has brought this appellation on
himself, I applaud you for this comment.  It certainly beats the shopworn
metaphor 'throwing the babe out with the bathwater', which I have resorted
to from time to time.  I also appreciate your quotes from the Copleston
Annotations which confirm what I've been saying for a long time.

It seems we all want to hitch our horses to a new idea, especially if it
means discarding an old idea that we may have an aversion to.  Who wouldn't
want to be identified with a philosophy that is regarded as "dynamic", as
opposed to what its author portrays as "static" -- even if these terms don't
quite fit the bill?   Khaled expressed the shortcomings of Pirsig's
philosophy quite simply when he said, "I have come to see that the
Metaphysics of Quality is silent on several things that most people consider
to be vital to what it means to be human; faith, hope and love."

If the truth be told, I am no more anti-Pirsig than I am pro-theist.  But I
think we can all recognize the truth in what Khaled says.  I continue to
look for signs that Essentialism and the MoQ may eventually form a
synergistic relationship in some meaningful way.  Meantime, I'm interested
in exploring the diverse views of all the MD participants, and I thank the
group for their willingness to tolerate mine.

Scott, I'd like your clarification on the tradic relation that you seem to
be advancing.  For example, on 2/24 you said:

> "The car hit a tree" is a dyadic relation. "John gave Mary a
> book" is a triadic relation. Giving requires three participants.
> Meaning is also a triadic relation: something means something
> else to someone. There's nothing deeper than this going on.

I can understand that giving something to someone else presupposes three
things, therefore is triadic.  But what do you find so significant about
this?  The book that John gives to Mary is an object.  The object is
observed by both parties as something experienced.  So you have awareness as
the subject and the book as its object.  The fact that there are two people
involved does not change the fundamental epistemology.  It seems to me that
this is still dyadic in the same way that one's cognizance or understanding
of a meaning is dyadic.  Why do you introduce a second person to make it
triadic?   You could as well argue that the "act of giving" is also an
element of the John-Mary-book relationship, and call it 'tetradic'.  Or add
a few more people and call it "x-adic".

Your comments?

--Ham