[MD] BeTteR-neSs (undefined or otherwise)

[Ham Priday]

Good evening, Mark --


> Hi Ham,
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful reply and standing your ground
> in an intelligent way.

I have you to thank for demonstrating the foolishness of dmb's insinuation 
that great works  of the past have been superseded by modern ideas and are 
no longer of value to our culture.  (As if philosophical postulates could be 
overruled as "outdated" by the new elitists!)  I could not have come up with 
a more brilliant analogy to counter this notion.

[Mark said to dmb]:
> ...You would probably argue that Beethoven is not worth listening to
> because he is old fashioned.  ..Conservatism comes from seeing what
> still works and sticking with it.  Modernity is not all it is cracked up 
> to be.
> It would also seem that you are part of the old guard here at MoQ.
> If so, perhaps you should let some new blood in so that it can continue
> to develop.  It appears that factions are formed, the old against the new.
> The easy solution is to prevent new thought in and be conservative and
> stick with the old.

At least we know who our detractors are, Mark.

> Ham, I'm sure you recognize that there are some in this forum
> that seem to think that MOQ is more than it is.  Possibly they
> haven't thought the whole thing through, or perhaps this is the
> only philosophy they know. Regardless, their elevation of MOQ
> to some Godly stature is not consistent with my readings of Pirsig.
> Somehow it is tabu to even talk about Quality, talk about Theism!
> No, we can't do that, it would simply demean, it is not reverent,
> children.

Yes, I once dared to describe the MoQ acolytes as a "cultist" group and got 
severely reprimanded for it.  They don't like to be called "dogmatic" 
either.  Still, it seems the loyalty to Pirsig is disproportionate to the 
originality of his thesis.  One explanation may be that ZMM became popular 
in the "Flower Child" era when many of the "old guard" were susceptible to 
New Age ideas.  But I really believe the major reason for their devotion is 
the author's sympathy with the secularist movement and its denouncement of 
religiosity, occult spiritualism and supernaturalism.

> I believe the fear of religion, which comes from lack of understanding
> is what governs this.  Some perceive religion to be somewhat weak
> or mindless, but in truth those that truly subscribe to religion must be
> much stronger than those who subscribe to simple logic is the sum
> total of their stay here.  Using simple logic, of course religion doesn't
> work.  What that means is that some have additional faculties that are
> missing from the simpletons. It is their loss, they can rail against it 
> all
> they want, but they won't get there using math.  Just look at all the
> great thinkers that were religious.  Those in this forum (myself included)
> do not even come close to them.  But, as always, history teaches us 
> nothing.

It is "doctrine" that they're revolting against, rather than religion per 
se.  Unfortunately, they don't seem to realize they've replaced the old 
"conservative" doctrine with new "radical" doctrine.  Scientific objectivism 
is universally accepted because the conclusions are fallible, whereas 
philosophical pronouncements can never be.  The trick is to "suggest" the 
theory by innuendo and metaphor without formal definitions or logical 
analysis.  "We don't need to define Quality because everybody knows what it 
is," typifies this approach.  The less definition and analysis, the better 
... or so they believe.  What they leave out, of course, eventually catches 
up with them.

I'm convinced that Truth is relative to the subject, and that philosophical 
propositions are of little value unless they have credibility to the 
individual who must ultimately choose to embrace them.  This effectively 
rules out dogma, rituals, and moral obligations imposed by external 
authority or social pressure.  Only when man learns to release himself from 
the bonds of "intellectual servitude" will he be truly free to establish the 
"authentic society" which I envision as his future potential.

Are you with me, Mark?

Essentially yours,
Ham