[MD] BeTteR-neSs (undefined or otherwise)

[Ham Priday]

Hi David --


[Ham to Horse, previously]:
> There are times when I feel compelled to speak out against
> ideas which violate what I view as the most fundamental
> principles of reality, and denial of the individual self is one
> of them.  The rejection of man's spiritual quest in the cause
> of anti-theism is another.  We're all searching for answers,
> but bashing the beliefs of others won't get us there.  And I
> certainly have no desire to undermine the MoQ.

[dmb says]:
> Well, it may not be what you intend but you are bashing the
> beliefs of others and you are undermining the MOQ, as I've
> tried to explain several times. The "fundamental principle of
> reality" that you so emphatically insist upon is exactly [what]
> the MOQ is designed to replace.
>
> Again, you are simply offering the original problem and
> rejecting the solution to that problem. You are entitled to
> your own beliefs of course, but you really ought to realize
> what a profound mismatch this is.

I've made no attempt to conceal my differences with the MoQ, David.  As I 
admitted to Dan Glover on 10/31, "it should be obvious to most of you that 
my ontology has fundamental differences with the 'official doctrine'".  And 
I don't regard criticizing the logic of a philosophical postulate "belief 
bashing", as you apparently do.

If the subjective self is the problem that the MoQ has allegedly "solved", I 
deny that it ever was a "problem".  We all participate in a subject/object 
world that is the source of all our knowledge.  The conscious experience of 
that world has its locus in the individual self.  The MoQ that Pirsig 
"designed to replace it" would have us pretend that we are living an 
illusion, that there are no subjects and objects, no freedom to choose, no 
role for mankind other than to go with the flow to "betterness" that is 
automatic in the author's evolutionary Quality.  I follow the epistemology 
that there is no Quality (Value) that is not realized, which suggests that 
man, not the universe, is the free agent of value who shapes the course of 
history.  By dismissing individual freedom, Pirsig reduces the human being 
to little more than an automaton of Nature with no will or purpose of his 
own.  .

> I'd also point out that anti-theism is NOT a rejection of religion
> or spirituality. Theism is just one particular KIND of religion and
> the MOQ is more compatible with the non-theistic varieties. It
> rejects faith and supernaturalism but it is a form of philosophical
> mysticism.  In that sense, it is very, very concerned with the
> spiritual quest.

In ZMM Pirsig says ""When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called 
insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion." 
In the Copleston Annotations, Pirsig notes: "The MOQ is atheistic".  Is this 
not a rejection of religion?  And what supports your conclusion that one can 
be religious and reject "faith and supernaturalism"?

> Also, the kind of "metaphysics" you're doing is considered -
> by most philosophers- to be dead. This is true even among
> many contemporary theologians, where metaphysics still
> survives to some small extent. (See Wrathall's book "Religion After
> Metaphysics", for example.)  You are beating a dead horse ...

Metaphysics deals with the theoretical fundamentals of philosophy, so I'm 
neither surprised nor discouraged by the fact that other authors have 
denounced
certain concepts that I've posited.  I fully suspect that Pirsig's concepts 
would also have been rejected or attacked by visionaries of the past. That's 
'par for the course' for anyone attempting to advance an original 
philosophy.

> Again, you're entitled to think what you want but please
> understand that you ARE undermining the MOQ with your
> "essentialism" and you ARE bashing the "beliefs" of MOQers.

If the points I have disputed in this forum are sufficient to "undermine the 
MOQ," then I would have to suggest that the MOQ is founded on quicksand.  As 
you see, Horse has assured me that being "at odds with aspects of the MoQ" 
does not constitute a reason for rejection.  I'll stand by the 
administrator's decision, not yours, David.

Your gratuitous comments about joining the Catholic church and selling magic 
to scientists are too churlish to merit a serious response.

But thanks for the advice.  I'll sleep on it.

--Ham