[MD] Objectivism and the MOQ

[Ham Priday]

Hi there, Platt --

I believe I've about exhausted my Much Ado About Nothingness.  How about
you?  Is your Dance of the Muslim Veils over yet?

Actually Nothingness is an engaging topic.  I remember watching those first
Seinfeld episodes in which the cast tried to sell a show "about nothing".
It turned out to be the most popular sitcom on TV for seven years running, I
think.

Micah made the point yesterday that Infinity and Nothingness are "mental
concepts" that don't exist in reality.  Maybe not.  But, then what DOES
exist in a reality where EVERYTHING is a mental concept?  That's really the
ontology that Pirsig has presented to us, except that he goes one step
further and says that Mind is in Quality.  (When I commented to Marsha that,
for Pirsig, Morality is innate in the universe, I was quickly corrected by
Gav who said "the universe is innate in Morality."  Yet, I distinctly
remember expressing doubts when you presented that concept to me.)

Earlier today, David made the following statement:
> My experiences of intelligence beyond myself
> make me feel that this intelligence goes beyond
> the individual but it is as much involved in a journey
> and an exploration as we are.

Now I'm totally confused!  I don't how what he's experiencing "beyond
himself", but this kind of thinking extricates Intelligence from man and
places it in a realm of its own -- merges it with the collective Intellect,
I suppose.  I confess to finding such assertions incomprehensible, as I
always believed it was man himself who possessed the intellect and did all
the thinking.  This is what happens when you attribute human functions to
the objective world.  I think we might all be less confused if we went
Rand's way and posited everything as Objective.  Then, perhaps, we could
gradually work our way back to what is essentially non-objective, like
Quality or Value.

All this meandering is leading up to an idea I'd like to try on you.  You
are arguably the most articulate person here, and you have indicated an
interest in my philosophy, provided that it could be expounded in "plain
English".

It would benefit me considerably, and I would be honored, to initiate a
dialogue with you toward that objective.  It could provide some quotable
material for my "hungry" Forum Page, clear my thinking for a simpler
exposition of Essentialism, and (now that it is no longer foreign to the MoQ
regulars) possibly trigger some insights on the contested fundamentals of
Mr. Pirsig's philosophy.  It would also give you the chance to play devil's
advocate whenever you saw the need and reproach me when I become boring.  (I
need this feedback, too!)  The best part of my proposition is that our
exchanges could be frequent or sparse, depending on how involved we are in
other ongoing discussions or whether we feel like talking on a particular
day.

Does this appeal to you at all, Platt?   Is it something you'd prefer to do
off-line?   Or is it something you'd prefer not to do?  (I won't be offended
by your answer.)

Thanks and Cheers,
Ham