[MD] BeTteR-neSs (undefined or otherwise)

[david buchanan]

Ham to dmb:

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 sel


dmb says:
That's exactly what I was talking about. The MOQ is a solution to a problem and you are denying that there is a problem. So the solution is quite meaningless to you. It's worse than that, actually. As you see it, the solution is the problem. As you see it, the MOQ....

Ham continued:
... 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 ... reduces the human being to little more than an automaton of Nature with no will or purpose of his own.


dmb says:
See, that view of the MOQ is very far from accurate. I'd even say it's pretty darn slanderous. The MOQ is profoundly humanistic, in fact. Man is the measure of all things, a participant in the creation of all things and thou art that. It is scientific materialism that reduces humans to little more than automatons and Absolutism that denies free will. The MOQ opposes both of these things. And both of those things grow out of the very problem you are denying. 


Ham said:
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"?


dmb says:

There is a distinction between theism and religion and that's true regardless of what Pirsig says. Buddhism and Taoism are non-theistic religions, for example. Philosophical mysticism is a non-theistic form of religion too. The MOQ is compatible with non-theistic religions, with non-theistic forms of mysticism. The Stanford Encyclopedia has a substantial article on "Mysticism" so you certainly don't have to take my word for it. A few sentences from the opening paragraphs is enough to show this. 
"Typically, mystics, theistic or not, see their mystical experience as part of a larger undertaking aimed at human transformation and not as the terminus of their efforts. Thus, in general, ‘mysticism’ would best be thought of as a constellation of distinctive practices, discourses, texts, institutions, traditions, and experiences aimed at human transformation, variously defined in different traditions.
Under the influence of William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience, heavily centered on people's conversion experiences, most philosophers' interest in mysticism has been in distinctive, allegedly knowledge-granting “mystical experiences.” Philosophers have focused on such topics as the classification of mystical experiences, their nature in different religions and mystical traditions, to what extent mystical experiences are conditioned by a mystic's language and culture, and whether mystical experiences furnish evidence for the truth of their contents."


Ham said:

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.


dmb says:

Well, yes, history shows that visionaries are often rejected as heretics, blasphemers or nut cases. But you're not understanding my criticism, Ham. There is nothing innovative about your essentialism. In this postmodern era, that kind of metaphysics is dead. You're asserting modern ideas and even some pre-modern views in a postmodern world. The things you're saying have been said many times already in the history of philosophy and the only scholars who still cling to such things are the most conservative of theologians. They are considered to be old fashioned and out of touch even among other theologians.



Ham said:
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.

dmb says:
I'm not calling for your removal and I don't think the MOQ is in any danger because of your essentialism. I'm just saying that you've failed to understand how wildly incompatible it is. I'm just saying that you don't understand the MOQ or even the problem it addresses.


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


dmb says:

That was just an analogy, Ham. The Catholic church is related to atheism as magic is related to science. The idea here is simply to characterize the relation between the MOQ and your essentialism. If the MOQ sees SOM as the problem to be solved and essentialism sees that same thing as the main principle to be protected, then there are opposed to each other in a very fundamental way. Do you really not understand this simple point? The Catholics also want to protect the very thing that atheism opposes. Magical thinking is approximately the opposite of scientific thinking. I'm not really talking about churches or magic. I'm just about the RELATIONS between those opposed views. I could simply say that Pirsig is trying to cool things down and you're trying to heat them up but I'm not talking about temperature. I'm talking about your opposition to the MOQ.