[MD] Nagarjuna and the MOQ

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Ham to Dan]
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.

[Arlo]
As you are with your "Essentialism", can you point out ANY way "Essentialism"
has changed towards Pirsig's ideas since you've been here, other than more
rejection and more condemnation? Has your "Essentialism" changed its "current
status" in the years you've been harping about it here?

[Ham]
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"...

[Arlo]
The thing is Ham, you are NOT talking about Pirsig's MOQ except to condemn it
and promote Essentialism. You are not trying to understand or advance Pirsig's
ideas, you are trying to debunk them and offer your own as better substitutes. 

[Ham]
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?

[Arlo]
There are many channels of dialogue we all are involved in, I am sure our
philosophical involvements do not begin and end at this forum. You act as if
YOU are not here, then us poor blind plebians will never be exposed to diverse
thought. 

And, given your comments, why don't we just repurpose this a general philosophy
group, oh hell, why restrict ourselves to just philosophy, why not a general
chat forum about anything? 

I'd imagine that most of here because we agree, in at least a large part, with
Pirsig's metaphysics, and we are interested in talking about that. When I want
to talk about semiotics, I have another forum I participate in. When I want to
talk about world mythologies, still another forum. If I ever became interested
in Kant, I'd join a Kant forum.

You get the idea. Why would I join a Kant forum to tell them Kant is
incomprehensible and incomplete, but surprise! my pet "thesis" is the one they
should be talking about!...

[Ham]
As intellectuals, we all abhor rote learning and dogmatic edicts issued by
authorities in the name of Truth. 

[Arlo]
Again, your assumption that without YOU or others arguing against Pirsig and
for Theory X, we'd never experience this, is idiotic. 

[Ham]
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.

[Arlo]
What "fresh, new interpretations of Pirsig's insights" do you offer, Ham, other
than he wrote an incomplete, incomprehensible, euphamistic story and his denial
of the "proprietary agent" spells doom for western philosophy? Oh, and we
should all embrace Essentialism instead?

THAT is your idea of a "fresh, new interpretation"? Too funny....

I disagree with Pirsig on one or two points, and I've argued that here, but my
goal is not self-promotion of my own "thesis", and I stay within a certain
fundamental agreement with the author. When and if I ever move outside of that,
why would I stay here? 

[Ham]
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.

[Arlo]
What YOU think are undefined or unresolved issues, and that's the reason no one
else here, mostly, gets their "sensible agents" all bunjeed-up about them. In
many ways you're like Chicken Little running around crying that the MOQ needs
proprietary awareness, oh no!!!... and we're all like, "crazy little chicken"...

[Ham]
On the assumption that it  is not violating Pirsig's thesis to suggest
alternative interpretations for consideration...

[Arlo]
You are NOT offering an "alternative interpretation", any more than if we
invited a Jehovah Witness to the forum for his "alternative interpretation".
And then why not a Platonist? A Kantian? An Islamic Imam? They all have
"alternative interpretations" too. Why even bother to call this a forum about
Pirsig at all, why not just have it a philosophical free-for-all. Wouldn't THAT
help us poor dogmatic, circular zombies in exposing us to diverse thinking? 

[Ham]
Of course, should Horse disagree, I shall be forced to follow the path taken by
Bodvar, Platt and Tim.

[Arlo]
Don't evoke the "censorship" story as an attempted defense. No one has called
for your removal, so don't pretend they have.

You brought me into this by your disingenous "question", like a flat-earther
walking into an astronomer's convention and saying "if someone can prove to me
the world is round they'd be doing science a big favor".

[Ham]
Until then, I remain your "inconvenient renegade"...

[Arlo]
Why not Glorious Savior? Or is that one too obviously delusional?