[MD] [Moq_Discuss] Aristotle & DQ

[Ham Priday]

 Hey, SA --


> I don't like how Ham generalizes that we're Pirsig Parrot's
> and we use a poetic talk that is not philosophy.  I keep
> emphasizing with Ham that his thesis is - HIS thesis, which
> is fine and dandy.  I like the MoQ, as I've said many times
> in the past, especially to Ham due to his instance that he
> KNOWS we are Pirsig Parrot's and HE KNOWS the
> MoQ better than Pirsig.  He talks over me, it seems,
> at times.  I may [get?] something back, like he copied his
> thesis from other essentialists and I guess I did say this
> since if one can't be creative (poetic), then they must be
> copying somebody else's philosophy.  Since he says one
> can't be poetic (creative), then to be a philosopher according
> to Ham one must be copying......

If I were a psychologist, I would conclude from these woeful complaints that 
your conscience is hurting and that you should take another walk in the 
woods.

Just for the record, I have NEVER referred to anyone here as a "Parrot" --  
with or without the cap "P".  In fact, I've never even used the word.  It 
was Ron who said "I'm not a Pirsig Parrot," as you now have also, so if the 
shoe fits, you can wear it.

I have used the term "acolyte", which means "follower in the same path or 
group," to describe the MD participants in general.  I've also suggested, 
here and elsewhere, that Mr. Pirsig has established something of a cult 
following, in the sense that his writings are constantly quoted to prove or 
refute the validity of the arguments debated.  I think almost any outsider 
would agree with that assessment.

I have never claimed, let alone "insisted", that I know the MoQ better than 
its author.  That would be ludicrous.  I'm sorry you feel that I talk over 
you.  If this is true, it's certainly not intentional.  I'm a "learner" here 
like all of you, and much of what I've learned about the MoQ has started 
with critical questionning.

Also, I don't understand the bit about my "copying" somebody else's 
philosophy.  All philosophers borrow ideas from from each other, which is 
what has sustained Philosophy as a cumulative effort through the ages.  I 
think you misunderstand the process.  You seem to be implying that this is a 
form of plagiarism or "cheating" on my part.  I can assure you that the 
fundamental tenets of Essentialism are my own, and if you find them stated 
by someone else calling himself an "essentialist", I'd surely like to know 
about it.

I know you like the MoQ and feel you've benefited from it, and I'm happy for 
you.  I can even understand why a dissenter like me can be a thorn in your 
side.  But please don't accuse me of remarks and claims that I didn't make, 
or take my remarks as an attack on you or anybody else.  I hope we're all 
sufficiently grown-up to distinguish healthy criticism from personal 
insults.

Peace,
Ham