[MD] What all is about.

[Ham Priday]

Dear SA in your "cloudy woods" --


>     Ham, I guess my questions were too difficult for
> you.  I do see here that you defined nihilism
> according to Ham.  Have you ever heard of dynamic
> quality?  Dynamic quality "does not have a rational
> (i.e., empirical) explanation."  Again Ham you fail to
> know the basic 101 moq stuff, but I fail to know the
> basic 101 essence thesis of Ham, but then again I've
> already said I find that thesis to have a little if
> any value.  When I try to screw in a screw do I use a
> hammer or a screwdriver?  What would be of more value
> in this situation?  The screwdriver of course, and so
> the hammer has little if no value in this event.

Clearly the answers you want are not to be found in a philosophy of Essence. 
Pirsig's "moral" philosophy is constructed on Quality, and he defines 
existence as a hierarchy of quality levels.  As Bo said, he sees "his task 
to be that of uniting science and art."  When an author makes philosophy an 
art form, he takes liberties that demean both Art and Science.  Anyone who 
has studied Science knows that it is limited to acquiring factual knowledge 
about the properties and relations of the empirical world.  Artists, on the 
other hand, seek self-expression through creative works that appeal to the 
esthetic senses.  To combine the two is like trying to make music out of a 
drill press.

My metaphysical philosophy is founded on absolute Essence, and its value is 
what relates subjective awareness to objective otherness.  To use your 
analogy, you are trying to screw with a hammer and getting yourself screwed 
instead.  The reason you find no value in my ontology is that you refuse to 
accept my fundamentals and are using the MoQ as your philosophy textbook. 
Whether you recognize it or not, the Quality thesis is a dogma in the MoQ 
cult in the same way that "original sin" is a dogma in religious circles. 
Unless you are willing to start afresh and consider the concept of an 
absolute source from which difference is negated, you'll continue to be 
mired in levels and patterns.

I understand that this is a forum chartered to discuss ideas in terms of 
quality levels, and that many participants are annoyed by ideas that don't 
conform to the prescribed pattern.  Fine, I'm OK with that, and I'll 
restrict my discussion to those interested enough in my philosophy to 
explore the central concepts.  No offense intended, SA, but I can't square 
the circle by making my answers fit your reality mindset.

There's a clearing ahead,
Ham