[MD] the subjective

[Krimel]

[Ham]
Krimel, I referred to you as an existentialist because your worldview is 
that Existence is primary to Essence.  All that you've stated above reflects

the common notion that reality = existence = beingness, the emergence of 
awareness being only a late phase of biological evolution incorporating 
advanced neuorological development.  We all recognize that this is the 
objectivist theory of Science and is consistent with experiential evidence. 

[Krimel]
What I have asked you to do is point out the error in this view and show how
your view affords a better or more complete understanding.

[Ham]
It would be pointless for me to "address this issue", since you are 
obviously not open to alternative views.  

[Krimel]
It is not I who am not open to alternative views. I actively seek after them
daily. But I do have some standards for what would constitute an alternative
view worth pursuing. Those standards center on the questions I keep asking
you above. In the absence of answers to those questions I tend to classify
"alternative views" as either fiction or delusion. You seem to want to
classify Pirsig's work in the same manner, as fiction. I can only point out
that at least fiction is entertaining.

[Ham]
The aim of philosophy and metaphysics is to get beyond the limitations of
experience and look at reality as more than a relational system made up 
of objects that arbitrarily come and go in space/time.  

[Krimel]
This is simply an insult to philosophy and to metaphysics.

[Ham]
If we can get an intellectual handle on ultimate reality, we may also 
gain insight as to the purpose and meaning of existence and, especially,
the role of the value-sensible creature in the cosmic scheme.

[Krimel]
If you are just looking for a mode of thinking that allows you to transcend
the limitations of experience, you need look not further than physics.
Physics has proceeded through the use of instruments that extend our sense
beyond their biological limitations. It also proposes concepts that are
mysterious precisely because we do not have the sensory or conceptual tools
built into us to grasp them. 

[Ham]
Robert Pirsig was inspired by Zen Buddhism and the Neoplatonists to present 
a perspective that is in part idealistic (i.e., Quality as a universal 
principle) but ontologically existentialist (Being as patterns of quality). 
>From his earliest writings, it is clear that his major objective was to 
develop a reality paradigm that would make Cartesian duality obsolete.  Such

a perspective didn't have to address metaphysical issues or define ultimate 
reality or a primary source.  Quality alone would be the unifying concept, 
replacing subjects and objects with a monistic hierarchy that achieved the 
author's objective.  Or so he thought, until the analytical logicians, 
positivists, and skeptics began to question some of the ideas implied in his

two quasi-fictional books, and some notable omissions.

[Krimel]
I don't really think logicians, positivists or skeptics have even given
Pirsig a second thought. But what Pirsig actually did was exactly what the
Buddhists did. He co-opted the metaphysics of Taoism into his system. Most
metaphysical systems really don't cut it. They require all manner of
preconceived assumptions that do not stand up to scrutiny either
intellectually or empirically. In my view Taoism is the stand alone
exception.

[Ham] 
Although I was ignorant of Pirsig's theory -- it wasn't taught in my 1950 
philosophy class -- I was also working on a metaphysical concept with a 
valuistic component.  

[Krimel]
This is truly surprising, Ham. Since in your "philosophy" time and space are
faite accompli, experienced arbitrarily, why couldn't you have studied
Pirsig's work 25 years before it was written? 

[Ham]
You see, Essentialism starts with awareness and its source, whereas the 
MoQ is based on evolution as a a function of Quality, and most of it 
is allegory rather than theory.  What we have in common begins and ends
with the idea that the sense of Quality (Value) is primary to the 
experience of physical reality.

[Krimel]
The fundamental problem with your approach and your "philosophy" is that it
starts with its own conclusion. Your method is to use logic until the logic
tells you that you are on the wrong track and then you say that logic is not
really a valid test of your "philosophy". You bring in science and quote
scientists until it is obvious they are not on your team and then you say
that you are really all about transcending the limits of science. You claim
neither rationalism nor empiricism are necessary to support your position.
When asked to provide a basis for others to accept your position you point
to you own unsubstantiated "intuition."

[Ham]
That there is a need for further understanding has become evident during my 
six years on the MD.  I have learned much from those willing and open-minded

enough to consider a different perspective, and I have strived to keep my 
comments within the context of Pirsig's philosophy unless specifically asked

about Essentialism.  I am also open to criticism, but get no joy from 
exchanging insults as a creative pastime.  I'm primarily interested in 
constructive dialogue as opposed to tearing apart someone else's ideas.  

[Krimel]
It has always been my impression that you came to the MD trolling for
disciples. You have never in our exchanges provided an effective response to
a single criticism. You have stated on many occasions that if a particular
criticism were valid your philosophy would collapse. The threat of collapse
rather than being a cause for reevaluation on your part was presented as a
defense against the criticism. So that: if "that" is true, Ham must be
wrong, therefore "that" must be wrong. So much for Hamian logic.

[Ham]
My ontology is fully documented on line and in paperback.  So, if you are 
persuaded that Existence precedes Essence, that a computer exists in your 
world if you're not aware of it, or that the appearance of water on Mars was

not a phenomenon that coincided with the rover findings, getting dragged 
into an argument to the contrary would be as unpleasant for me as it would 
be unproductive for you.

[Krimel]
I suffered through the reading of your online term paper and have no wish to
subject myself to the extended director's cut. All I have ever asked is for
some reason for taking your delusions seriously. At one point not too many
years ago I began to try to imagine a world in which when objects move away
from me they do not just appear to get smaller, they actually shrink. It
kind of worked and I could not think of a way to disprove it. Ultimately it
didn't work for me personally but you are welcome to use it I suspect it
fits your ontology.

But you are right about one thing, talking to you is a waste of time. I tend
to get very insulting with you precisely because you refuse to give serious
answers to polite inquiry. You avoid the issue and spew your own dogma at
people and act all intellectually superior in the process. Being talked down
to by a midget is infuriating. 

I do try very hard to ignore you as I have no wish to disturb your slumber.
I don't have time for even the reasonable folks around here these days and I
would be happy to resume ignoring you. Just don't mention my name or
obliquely refer to me and you can continue your fishing for a converts in
peace. After six year without a bite though, you might want to consider the
possibility that you are using the wrong bait.

[Ham]
Enjoy your sojourn in Boston, but don't try to talk philosophy with those 
shrinks at the APA convention.  They'll only tell you what you already know.

[Krimel]
These are not "shrinks" but the truth is some of the best work in philosophy
done in the last century was done by physicists and psychologists and
scientists in many other disciplines. If I actually thought I knew
everything they have to tell me I would either, not be going or I would be
on the program. But I don't and I'm not.