[MD] "100% confident"

[Ham Priday]

Hi Ron --

> SA,
> This is an honest inquiry;
> I see no reason why this should piss you off, if you don't dig
> What's being said then stop reading the thread.
> It's certainly no justification for an attack.
>
> Forget it, laugh away you elitist jerk.

SA is hardly an elitist, Ron.  He lives in the woods, considers himself a 
mystic, and throws darts at us from behind the bushes.  Some people get 
their jollies by taking statements out of context and poking holes in them.

There are a several here who apparently skipped Science in school and regard 
metaphysics as a branch of Physics.  They're looking for factual answers 
about the universe and are frustrated that the intelligentsia in this forum 
aren't forthcoming with them.  Since intuitive concepts are new to these 
folks, their first impulse is to attack the messenger.  They'll quote what 
Pirsig says on every issue; but, unfortunately, despite naming his 
philosophy the Metaphysics of Quality, what Pirsig actually said about 
metaphysics was mostly disparaging.

In Chpt. 9 of LILA, for example, he ruminates about Phaedrus (his alter-ego) 
having been "forced to avoid" metaphysics when writing ZMM:

"In his book Phaedrus had tried to save Quality from metaphysics by refusing 
to define it, by placing it outside the dialectical chessboard.  Anything 
that is undefined is outside metaphysics, since metaphysics can only 
function with defined terms.  If you can't define it, you can't argue about 
it. ...No matter what position you take on a metaphysical question someone 
will always start asking questions that will lead to more positions that 
still lead to more questions in this endless intellectual chess game.  The 
game is supposed to stop when it is agreed that a particular line of 
reasoning is illogical.  But conflicting positions go on for centuries 
without any such checkmate being agreed upon."

In this rare moment of reflection, I think the author revealed his Achilles 
Heel: the dread of having to confront his challengers.  How does he avoid 
this?  By turning to Indian folklore, mythology, and mysticism -- cultural 
belief systems where logical definitions are not required and where poetry 
can pass for philosophy.  The recent BBC interview with Baggini again 
demonstrated the author's annoyance with metaphysical questions and his 
unwillingness to define the fundamental MoQ terms.  This has to be a 
shortcoming for any serious philosopher, let alone one who calls his 
philosophy metaphysics.

But enough about Pirsig.  Again, I commend you for your efforts to bring the 
MoQ and Essentialism into some sort of harmony.  I would like to see this, 
too, although I still feel that such a synthesis would require major 
modification of the basic premises cited in my previous message.  And I 
don't think either author is willing to do that.  (Besides, I won't 
officially be an "author" until my book comes out; and I can guarantee you 
it will never make the New York Times "best-seller" list ;-)

Cheers,
Ham