[MD] Nagarjuna and the MOQ

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Dan]
Now, you tell me (or if you don't want to talk to me tell Mark), what are we
doing here? I don't see anything about Essentialism... not one word.

[Arlo]
Exactly, Dan. When other metaphysics/ideas are introduced, as DMB often does
with James, John with Royce, Marsha with Buddhism and as I have done recently
with theories on agency/structuration, there should be an attempt to to use
these to illuminate the MOQ not replace it. 

Some disagreement is unavoidable and necessary, and this is healthy and how
ideas evolve. There is a *big* difference between saying "the MOQ can be
strengthened by this consideration" and "the MOQ should be abandoned and
replaced with Essentialism". 

As DMB said earlier, joining a forum when you have a fundamental disagreement
with its central topic, and spending all your time renouncing that topic and
suggesting an alternative isn't illegal, but it is weird. You join forums to
discuss topics that are of interest to you, and its clear the MOQ is of no
interest to Ham, except perhaps as a breeding ground for potential converts.

Ham tries to smooth this over by saying he shares an interest in "Valuistic"
philosophy, and this is like a Honda rider telling a forum of Harley
enthusiasts that while he feels their bikes are inferior, shoddy and only
mindless zombies ride them, he participates in their forum because they share a
love of motorcycles. 

[Dan]
And when someone like me or dmb or Horse or Arlo or any number of contributors
have tried to engage you and possibly enlighten you in some small way on the
MOQ, it becomes apparent you have no wish to do so.

[Arlo]
Exactly, two points here (1) anyone can peruse the archives to see that there
are exactly zero posts by Ham that evidence interest in the MOQ apart from an
opening condemnation followed by a version of "Essentialism is better" and (2)
despite being here for years, and despite many here having made repeated
attempts to address his complaints, he still acts as if each charge is somehow
"new" and was never addressed. This is why I called his "question" to me (that
set this off) disingenuous. It was as if it had never been asked before, and no
one has ever addressed it. 

Ham's charge of "cultism" is funny, because it basically says that by rejecting
HIS ideas, we remain a "cult". It is people like Ant and David Granger,
DiSanto, and even Crawford, not to mention DMB and others doing work outside
this forum that will move Pirsig's ideas forward. 

And that's the point Mark and Ham continue to miss, that for us this forum
represents one point of contact with the "philosophical conversations" around
us. They not only have mistaken notions of "dissent", but they have the
mistaken notion that without dissent "here", without their voices, the rest of
us will wallow hopelessly in homogeny of thought.

As I said before, "dissent"- if its to move an idea forward- must retain a
certain critical mass of foundational agreement. Its clear Ham has none of
this, he rejects Quality as primary, he rejects the MOQ hierarchy, he charges
that Pirsig's rejection of the "sensible agent" spells doom for Western
philosophy, this is not a "dissent" that will further Pirsig's ideas, this is a
dissent that wants to abandon Pirsig's ideas.

That aforementioned Honda rider isn't in that forum to improve Harleys, he is
there to convince everyone to buy Hondas instead. And his megalomania probably
would lead him to think that all Harley enthusiasts just blindly follow and
accept the Motor Company's decisions; even though genuine Harley afficianados
have done much to improve and strengthen Harley's design, manufacture and
sales. 

[Dan]
Your concepts are rejected because of your own failings, Ham.

[Arlo]
Exactly. But I think its easier for Ham to call us all "cultists" instead.
Saves his ego and protects his "Essentialism", which is what he is here to
promote. He can continue his delusion of being a "renegade", placing his
failure to "win converts" not at the foot of his own "thesis" but in us
mindless zombies too hypnotized to fully appreciate the grandeur and magnitude
of his ideas.

[Dan]
I don't get why a person would spend years at a discussion group dedicated to
Robert Pirsig's MOQ and yet have no interest in learning about it.

[Arlo]
Yeah, I don't either. Why join a forum predicated on discussing a metaphysics
that you outright reject? Although I am starting to see that part of this
answer is that it gives Ham a sense of being some "cowboy hero" or something.
He is here to "save" not only us, but Western Philosophy itself, from the grip
of cultish nihilism. He is here not out of interest, but out of duty. He is the
Hero and we are the unwashed masses in need of his rescue. 

[Dan]
I hope you both stay on. But it would be most pleasant if you took an interest
in the whole reason for this discussion group's existence.

[Arlo]
While this discussion has certainly shed some light on my initial question to
Ham, why are you here?, it certainly has never suggested Ham be removed. I
think allusions to this are, again, evidence of a "renegade-psychology" and
should've been anticipated. "Heroes" are always persecuted or cast out
initially, after all, in some manner, as Campbell has shown.

Personally, I've never cared that Ham is here. If others want to engage him on
Essentialism, that's their own concern. Horse can decide when and if this white
noise ever starts to drown out legitimate dialogue about Pirsig's ideas, and if
it hasn't in years I say Ham has no reason to fret. 

Personally, I wouldn't waste my time in a forum with people I didn't respect,
talking about an idea that I reject, but I suppose the world needs heroes along
with those who need saving.