[MD] Nagarjuna and the MOQ

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Dan --

On Tuesday, 9/20/11 at 12:42 AM, "Dan Glover" <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone
>
[snip]
>
> The reason no one complains is that it does no good.  I tried
> discussing the MOQ with you on numerous occasions to no avail.
> Like Marsha (Lucy), you seem to want to engage me in a game
> but then you pull the football away. I think you should be happy
> you have others like Marsha and Mark who enjoy discussing
> nonsense and leave the rest of us alone.
>
> Dan (the not so innocent bystander)

I don't know what game you think I'm playing or what football I pulled away 
from you.  I can assure you that I'm not into games and, if I failed to 
continue a dialogue, it was probably because your response was to play 
"Pirsig says".

Dan, I appreciate that you are totally absorbed in the MoQ, philosophically 
allied with the author, and resolved to hold the level of understanding to 
its current status.  I'm also aware that the MD is dedicated to Pirsig's 
ideas.  That said, MOQ-Discuss is described in the Charter as a 
"free-ranging forum for the discussion of Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality", 
and it is clear that its members have wide-ranging and diverse views as to 
the meaning of the author's pronouncements.

In the interest of fuller understanding, is it not relevant to compare MOQ's 
fundamental tenets with the concepts of other philosophies, both classical 
and contemporary?  If so, why should
you and Arlo want to discourage such discussion when it involves a different 
interpretation of Value realization?  As intellectuals, we all abhor rote 
learning and dogmatic edicts issued by authorities in the name of Truth. 
With no logical proofs or empirical validation at its disposal, Philosophy 
is a dialectical discipline at best.  That's why so many discussions here 
are of the "circular" type that seem to go on interminably without producing 
a satisfactory conclusion.

On the other hand, a "free-ranging discussion" that is restricted to 
unchallenged repetitions and echoes of the author's statements deprive 
Pirsig's insights of fresh, new interpretations that can ensure against 
stagnation and make his legacy more meaningful for future generations.

While I don't deny an interest in promoting Essentialism, the arguments I've 
presented in this forum are a sincere attempt to point out and/or clarify 
undefined or unresolved metaphysical issues in Pirsig's philosophy.  Since 
Value factors significantly in both philosophies, it's only natural that the 
solutions I offer will take an essentialist form.  On the assumption that it 
is not violating Pirsig's thesis to suggest alternative interpretations for 
consideration, I regard those who call my suggestions irrelevant or 
"nonsense" as disingenuous.  Of course, should Horse disagree, I shall be 
forced to follow the path taken by Bodvar, Platt and Tim.

Until then, I remain your "inconvenient renegade",
Ham