[MD] is-ness

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Ron [SA, Marsha mentioned] --

> Ham, I thought how Richard Schain observed how humans
> have a metaphysical need and how that need is best met
> through philosophical inquiry and development of consciousness,
> described well my own feelings toward the metaphysical
> question you asked me about my own beliefs.

We all have psychological needs, too, as is evident from the current posts 
on the MD.  Some of them read like a visit to the psychotherapist. 
Philosophy seems to be on holiday this week.  Free-thought association, 
introspective revelation, acorn pancake recipes and poetry fill the void of 
philosophic thought.

SA writes about overcoming the depression of his youth:
> Writing is still what saves me, helps me clarify, have fun with words,
> and think my way through in order to come up with something
> beautiful that satisfies and makes one this effort.  Writing is a way to
> help me harmonize with this world.  Writing helps me harmonize with
> this culture, so, this culture doesn't seem so bad, for the writing is
> something of this culture I've been able to find a niche and put my
> heart into - a passion in this culture, thus, I see my place more and
> more in this culture.

Marsha writes about a lost love:
> I left job, city, friends, coven and boytoy ...
> This was very dishonest and unfair.  He was a sweetheart,
> and I cared for him, but he was way too young.

I wonder how many others here are using writing as a kind of autotherapy for 
despondency, loneliness, or anger.  A lot of New Age spiritualism caters to 
this psychological need.  I see this as distractive not only to the intent 
of the MoQ but to alternative views expressed in this forum.

On 8/19, SA voiced a complaint about me:
> I remember asking Ham a long time ago what his motivations
> are, why he thinks he needs to come up with a new philosophy.
> He couldn't answer.  I mean he could have said something simple,
> like, all the current philosophies don't achieve what he finds
> reality to be or something to that nature.
>
> Maybe if Ham had some more poetry in his life, he could make
> his endeavor sound as beautiful as you did here.
> But he avoids this "making sense" stuff to what he subjects as
> mere poetry which is a lower form of intellectual species.
> The heart could add some color as you did below and actually
> make his effort not only more understandable but more alive.

You kindly came to my defense:
> I think what Ham is trying to do is address the human beings need
> for metaphysics without all the complications that theology brings.
> That's a pretty big undertaking. Arlo posted a quote from Manly Hall:
> "The role of the priest(ess)/shaman/druid is to guide one from an
> exoteric to an esoteric understanding, and THIS is (again for Hall)
> the moment of Enlightenment, the moment when the human mind sees,
> suddenly, the esoteric metaphor hidden beneath the Word."
>
> I see Ham as attempting to bridge that gap in a prescriptive way.
> Which is rough row to hoe, my suggestions were all about streamlining
> the meaning which only aids in understanding this. Supplying meaning is
> always a tricky business, so to be sure, you had better make sense.
> The difficulty with supplying meaning prescriptively lies in the
> individuality of each person's experience.
>
> I think now, as Ham and I last left things, his thesis is very
> close to what Pirsig proposes, in fact it is almost a bridge
> from SOM to MoQ, it is more a SOLAQI than any of Bo's proposals.
>
> I sense that he really is trying to make a difference, not just some
> pompous intellectual selfishness. I can dig that, I may not agree
> but I respect his intent.

Thanks, Ron.  That's a mighty generous tribute to a lay philosopher, and 
while you've got my intent pretty well nailed down. it's doubtful that 
either Bo or Pirsig would view Essentialism as a bridge to the MoQ.

Concerning SA's comment, I wasn't putting down poetry, or the joys of 
walking in the woods, for that matter.  I was merely suggesting that poetry, 
like analogy and metaphor, do not a philosophy make.  We have to define the 
terms of a concept and (as you've stressed) make the proposition logical, if 
it is to be meaningful.  Poetry does not do this.  It's created to evoke 
feelings, emotions, sentiments -- which is fine for "feel good" reading, but 
not for understanding.

Perhaps, now, you can be more specific about what it is that you agree or 
disagree with in my philosophy.  I assume that its incompatability with the 
MoQ is problematic to you, but I can't address our differences without 
knowing what they are.

Thanks, Ron.

Essentially yours,
Ham