[MD] BeTteR-neSs (undefined or otherwise)

[david buchanan]

Ham said:
... It's frustrating to hear complaints that I "fail to understand" the MoQ; much more vexing is a message from one who comprehends Essentialism sufficiently to cite those issues that make it "fundamentally at odds" with what I do understand of Pirsig's thesis. .. Of course this comes as no surprise to me.  Indeed, it should be obvious to most of you that my ontology has fundamental differences with the "official doctrine".  ... As an individualist, I'm also opposed to authoritarian obeisance. ... Before I am ejected from this forum for noncompliance, however, let me stress (in Dan's words) what being a Pirsigian requires you to believe, and how this is viewed by an Essentialist.


dmb says:

Official doctrine? Authoritarian obeisance? Ejected for non-compliance?

Do you really see no difference between submission and comprehension? Do you really think that people should be allowed to misunderstand an idea in the name of individualism and liberty? 

When we talk about the rejection of SOM, we are not JUST talking about what Pirsig thinks. We're also talking about the history of Modern philosophy. The "observer" that you insist upon has been rejected by whole schools of thought within the West and the rejection of that notion is even more common in the East. More specifically, the pragmatic tradition is predicated on rejecting the very thing you insist upon. And to be very, very, specific, William James rejected that notion more than a hundred years ago in an essay titled "Does Consciousness Exist?".

Now, Ham, it would be one thing if you understood the reasons for this rejection SOM. Then you'd be in a position to dispute it and attack it and maybe to put that "observer" back into the picture. Or at least you could try. But you seem quite oblivious to the arguments against SOM, and you act as if nobody had ever tried to tell you this. You see, Pirsig identifies SOM as the root of a serious cultural problem and both of his books are meant to offer an alternative, one that addresses this cultural crisis. 

>From a MOQers' point of view, you are offering the original root of the problem as an alternative to Pirsig's solution. If Pirsig were a surgeon who had just finished cutting all the cancer out of a patient, you are the confused nurse who puts the cancer back into the patient. I realize that you don't see it that way. Nobody actually wants to do harm. But it does show that you've failed to understand the problem AS a problem. And because the MOQ is a solution to that unseen problem, you don't see the point or purpose of the MOQ.

This is not a matter of freedom or determinism. It's not about obedience or conformity or denying anyone's right to have their own point of view. It's about coming to grips with an artificial conception of the relations between knower and known, a conception that has caused all kinds of fake problems throughout the history of philosophy. It's about the flaws in the basic assumptions behind value-free objectivity and amoral rationality. If you understood this, you certainly wouldn't be trying to re-assert those flawed assumptions, at least not without first criticizing the rejection of those assumptions. 

What you're doing here is analogous to criticizing the Protestants because they're such bad Catholics. The Protestant is just going to scratch his head in bewilderment. He'll say yea, of course I'm not a good Catholic. That's the whole point of being Protestant. If you try to re-assert Catholicism without first understanding the Protestant's reasons for rejecting it, then you haven't even entered into the debate at all and from his point of view you have no reasons for this re-assertion, let alone good and convincing reasons.