[MD] BeTteR-neSs (undefined or otherwise)

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> 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.
>Ham:
> 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.  .

Dan:

Since we've agreed to disagree, I would like to point out some
possible flaws in your thinking here, Ham. This subject-object world
isn't primary. It is not the source of our knowledge by any stretch of
the imagination. We have been trained to believe that a subject
observes objects and both are independent of one another, but it is
just training that makes it so. Quantum theory has shown that it is
impossible to measure an object without disturbing it... observer and
observed are linked... there is no independent observer.

As far as free will, we both have it and don't have it. The universe
is us, not something separate and apart. Man is the measure but man
and measure are inextricably linked, as shown by quantum theory. I
think it was Matt Kundert who had some interesting things to say along
those lines... I would have to go back and look it up now or maybe he
has it posted on his website. It'd be worth your while checking it out
if you have the time or maybe I can post it later.

But RMP does not dismiss individual freedom, at least as far as I
know. Maybe you could point out some relevant quotes. He does however
say that the individual is fictitious, that both science and Buddhism
have come to the same conclusions, and that any philosophy based on
individualism is fraught with problems, which I have explained in an
earlier post.

>dmb:
>> 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.
>Ham:
> 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"?
>

Dan:
Religion is a coming together. The MOQ is anti-theistic, not
atheistic. Theism is the belief in a supernatural power, be it God,
Allah, Jehovah... whatever. The MOQ is empirical. It does not
subscribe to supernatural solutions. Neither does the MOQ denouce
religion, however.

dmb:
>> 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 ...
>Ham:
> 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.

Dan:
This is beyond me. Ham, you have my admiration for advancing your own
philosophy. But I disagree with the fundamentals that you posit, as
does the MOQ, in my opinion. Still, I can't see the harm in what you
are doing. Neither can I understand it, but that's just me.

>dmb:
>> 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.
>Ham:
> 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.

Dan:

As far as I know, Ham has always acted with respect and dignity, which
I have come to appreciate over the years. Rather than playing tit for
tat, he simply shuts up. We all could learn from his example, in my
opinion.

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

Dan:
I don't have to join, I am already Catholic. Not practicing, but
still... can't undo the magic waters...

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

Sweet dreams, all,

Dan