[MD] Is it serious?

[Ham Priday]

Hi Andre --


> Politics can be seen as the practical application of one's
> philosophical stance. Most politicians I know and hear
> have their philosophical convictions based on outmoded,
> outdated, flawed and contradictory philosophies.
> Here in Holland, Calvin, Descartes and Locke are still
> top of the pops.

Interesting that you include Calvin, the author of predestination, as a 
popular philosopher.  Also, what makes a philosophy "outmoded"?  Since a 
philosophy can't be proven wrong, doesn't this really mean passé, as in 
"old-fashioned"?

[Ham]:
> Instead of trying to sweep the knowing Self under the
> (collectivist) rug, try appreciating the value of difference
> in your own life.

[Andre]:
> But I am Ham, and do not think I am suggesting or advocating
> the 'death of the individual'. I'd rather see a kind of
> complementarity in the spirit of Pirsig's heart, head and hands
> (as desrcribed in ZMM). This way of working and living
> will unfold a notion of the Good common, and at the same time
> different, for everyone.
>
> The current notion of individualism is simply a cover up for
> supporting an artificial self interest based on exploitation,
> and not just of the poor but of a living earth as well.
> Individual differences can complement and stimulate towards
> a greater good but they can also produce conflict and destruction.
> I suggest that the latter path is the one we have been on for
> quite some time now and it is time that we change this,
> based on updated philosophies informed by the latest scientific
> investigations (e.g MoQ). ...

Whoa! -- "scientific investigations" like the MoQ?  Let's not confuse 
philosophical theory with Science.  Pirsig is not a scientist by any 
criteria you can name.  Just because someone calls his ontology "radical 
empiricism" doesn't qualify it as a science.

Your notion of individualism as a "cover up for self-interest" is the 
liberal polemic of politicans who want to impose some form of socialism on 
the public under the name of "social equality".  This is the agenda of 
Obama's administration in the U.S.  His concept of "spreading the wealth" by 
penalizing the productive members of society comes right out of "Atlas 
Shrugged".  If allowed to proceed unchecked it will kill the incentive of 
free enterprise, swell our welfare-dependent underclass, and reduce America 
to a third-world nation.  The Founders of our Constitution would be appalled 
by the leftist drift of our once proud nation.

> The intellectual level can play a leading role in this but
> I do give Bodvar the benefit of the doubt: the S/O divisions
> will be furthered and history will repeat itself yet again.

I don't see "intellect" (or the lack of it) as the source of the problem. 
Rather, it's the Marxist ideology that the freedom to prosper by one's 
talents and perseverance and keep what he earns is immoral.  That "life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is selfishness.  And that the State 
is obliged to step in and "equalize the disparity" at the expense of its 
citizens.

That's the "political" side of collectivist philosophy.  But my interests 
here are focused on the epistemology and metaphysics of subjective 
awareness.  In my opinion, the concept of human being as distinct and 
separate individuals is all but rejected by the Pirsigians.  This is 
regrettable because unless we recognize the uniqueness of each individual, 
particularly with respect to value sensibility, we fail to understand that 
the Self is the "agent of Value" in the universe.  And that is central to my 
philosophy of Essentialism.

To put it another way: Difference is the fundamental ground of existence. 
Subjectivity and objective (experiential) reality are differentiated by 
identity, species, attribution, relations, history, and location.  The 
absolute Source of existence is uncreated, undivided, and unchanging.  A 
philosopher can't bridge the gap between existence and the ultimate source 
by collectivizing the constituents of existence.

"Vive la difference!"

--Ham