[MD] reflection on Ham

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Adie --



> Well , consider this; in realism, and abstraction under realism
> there are no 'Pirsigians'.  Only Mr Pirsig himself is a Pirsigian,
> the Pirsigians you are pointing out, are readers and some are
> readers/thinkers. Some are even metaphysical thinkers.

I would say that people who quote Pirsig as their authority for every 
question, who insist on explaining their experience in his terms and 
chastise those who have an alternate view deserve to be called "Pirsigians". 
Where "original thinking" is regarded as heresy, one doesn't find many 
examples of it.

> I do not think that we reached an impasse, Ham,
> but this is going to be difficult.  First of all, if we are going
> to eat an elephant, i think we have to do it in pieces.
> But seriously, Ham, what i see here....is a hurd of elephants.
> Been thinking about your issue's today on my job.
> Let's talk at first about some issues.

Okay, shoot.

> Mr Pirsig did never oppose to religion, and states it clearly,
> that the moq is not rejecting it.

Can you point me to a quote in which Pirsig states that the MoQ is NOT 
antitheist?  I've seen several that state he is.

> Not in his optic[?], but in mine solely, i do not disapprove
> your search, i think this is of value for you.
> But i do not accept it to be projected towards me.

The question is: Is it a value for YOU?  If not, there is no point in 
pursuing it.

> Need to read a paper on positron annihilation, did not want
> to mention it, but as i was thinking of it, i was thinking about
> the positron Quality question, does it have quality?
> I was thinking of it in the way of a simple seed, a little plant seed.
> taking away the quality out of the seed,......all quality it posseses,
> then, is it still a seed , wil it grow?  WILL it GROW?
> without quality?  I don't think so, so a positron has quality.

Not being a physicist, I don't know a positron from a proton.  In any case, 
I don't see its relevance to "quality".  Quality (Value) is not something a 
thing "has"; it's an aspect of existence that must be realized.

> Is a word [such] as Quality an indecent proposal towards
> the creator if we are asking for this item?
> Is it allowable to ask that quality is in the basic toolset
> of the creator? or was it always present?
> then the creator was responding to quality...........

You tell me, Adrie.  It sounds like you're putting Quality before the 
Creator.  That doesn't make for a logical ontogeny.  From an epistemological 
standpoint, does it make sense to say that quality exists before there is a 
sensible agent to realize it?

Previously you said: "I am not an existentialist, but truly, existence 
precedes essence."  If you hold to this view, you ARE an existentialist by 
definition.
Since existence is a system comprised of beingness, in effect you are 
asserting that the creation of being precedes the Source of creation.  Does 
that make sense to you?

Sleep on it, Adrie, and get back to me when your head has cleared.

Essentially speaking,
Ham