[MD] Nagarjuna and the MOQ

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Mark]
You say you have no need and then you follow it up with some complaining.  Is
that what you call philosophizing? 

[Arlo]
Back at you. Ham keeps mentioning me, so I keep responding. Is that a hard
concept for you? Same here, don't mention me, Mark, and I can assure you you'll
neither hear from me nor reach me with your sophomoric posts again. But mention
me, and I will certainly respond. (WOW! Next stop, rocket science!)

[Mark]
Why are are you here if you don't want to present your refutation of a
discussion?  Isn't this a philosophy forum? 

[Arlo]
No, its a forum for discussing Pirsig's philosophy. Like Ham, you make the
inane mistake of thinking this is the ONLY channel for philosophy discussion we
belong to, and that without YOUR dissent we'd be hopelessly unexposed to
"refutation". 

[Ham]
MoQ is a work in progress, Pirsig said so himself.  If you disagree with a
premise, use your brain!!

[Arlo]
Ham is not working on the MOQ, he's only proselytizing "Essentialism". It
contributes nothing to the MOQ. I'd say the same thing if we had Jehovah
Witnesses, Kantians, Hegelians, Imams, or any other "refutation" writer here
who did nothing but condemn the philosophy we are here to discuss and promote
their own "thesis" instead.

There is one thing to find points of disagreement within the framework of
Pirsig's ideas, and discuss ways to strengthen or extend them. It is another to
reject the very fundamental ground of Pirsig's ideas, ridicule them, and
promote a different "thesis" instead.

Because, Mark, when I want to discuss other ideas I join other forums, I take
philosophy classes in that subject, I read books about it, I find other people
interested in the idea... Maybe for you and Ham this is your sole channel of
all things philosophy, so grasping the idea that maybe, just maybe, the rest of
us are involved in many, many discussions outside of here dealing with those
who reject Pirsig or come at metaphysics from a different position, and we
don't need YOU or Ham to save us from monotony.

Plus, I think joining a discussion forum because I find the subject
"incomprehensible, incomplete and euphamistic" and then proceed to spend years
evangelicizing "my" thesis to the pathetic masses is just plain weird, as DMB
said, not illegal but very, very sad.

YOU want to discuss "Essentialism" with Ham, by all means please do so, but
don't think that having that discussion HERE saves us poor, homogenous zombies
from never hearing dissenting ideas. Go start an "Essentialism" forum with Ham,
and make each other's "sensible agents" happy...