[MD] BeTteR-neSs (undefined or otherwise)

[Ham Priday]

Hi Horse --


> Just a minor point but why would I eject you from MD?
> As far as I'm aware you haven't been abusive, you edit your posts 
> properly, you don't inundate the forum with posts, you're generally polite 
> etc. etc.
> Your point of view may be at odds with aspects of the MoQ
> but then there are some on this list who say they support the MoQ
> and then do their best to undermine it.
> Your political persuasion is not mine but then you don't shove that
> down everyone's throat at every possible opportunity.
> In short, you're very welcome here and, to be honest, if certain others on 
> this forum behaved as well as you I would be a lot happier at times.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Horse.  It's much appreciated.

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.

As you may recall, I was invited to join the MD in a response from Mr. 
Pirsig to a query regarding values in the summer of 2004.  After checking 
out ZMM from our local library and reading LILA in paperback, I concluded 
that the MoQ was a comprehensive aesthetic analogy for material existence. 
Exposure to the MD quickly revealed that this worldview was to be taken 
literally.  Having developed a valuistic philosophy of my own, I began to 
realize this was impossible for me.  But by that time, I had become so 
fascinated by what the forum participants were saying that I was hooked into 
exchanging ideas with them.

Pirsig is an appealing writer with a keen mind and an anthropological flair. 
Although I don't put much stock in his alleged "radical empiricism", I 
believe the Quality thesis will be his legacy to philosophy.  The major 
problem I have with the ontology is that Quality=Value must be realized, and 
Value realized by a pattern of Quality is tautological.  This is why I 
stress value-sensibility as the essence of selfness.

The anticipation of "ejection" may have exaggerated my metaphysical 
differences with the author, for which I apologize.  Anyway, it was gracious 
of you to come to my defense with such a favorable report.  I don't envy the 
conflicts you mediate daily in what must be a frustrating role as the MD 
administrator.

Yours respectfully,
Ham