From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Thu Aug 12 2004 - 15:47:50 BST
Hello everyone,
Just have to chime in hear with a couple thoughts, as I've only just gotten
to this particular thread.
First, based on a review of the dialogue, I offer my support for Dan and
Mark's valid criticisms. While it is certainly much easier to deal with
unchallenging responses, dealing with those who find not just disagreement
with particular conclusions but with one's "thesis" as a whole is more
telling of where one is positioned between proselytizer and philosopher.
Hopefully this will not degenerate into another "every time I am challenged
I will call it an 'ad-hominem' attack and cry foul". Ham, to use your own
quote, Mark and Dan are not doing this for a paycheck and is free to thus
"call it as they see it".
Onward...
In perusing your "thesis", I am struck by the overt support your philosophy
offers to the current conservative regime of the U.S. of A. From a pretty
much word-for-word duplication of the "fear" that Tom Ridge and the younger
Bush have been drilling into the minds of the citizenry (Today we find
ourselves terrorized by a horde of suicidal fanatics bent on destroying
Western Civilization in the name of a deity that shows no regard for the
value of human life), to the sly rebuking of liberal won ideals as "while
the common citizen has come to believe that the exercise of individual
freedom means demonstrating for more "civil rights"". While I would agree
that it is impossible to step outside our enculturation, I am always
curious when a philosophy or a religion or a "thesis" points the way to one
particular government. Since your finger is pointing to the Bush regime,
you'll get support from other Bush-ies, and if you are guided by these
motivations, go for it. But "who's serving who?", is the question I'd ask.
(By the way, the fact that you'd say "in the name of a deity that shows no
regard for the value of human life" shows you have no real understanding of
Islam or the "motis operandi" of the occidental religions. Indeed, given
the travesties committed in the name of "Jesus", one could easily make the
same statement about Christianity (as Mark elegantly pointed out). If your
comment was to show the inherent problems of "all religion" or "all
occidental religion", you failed to make this point. If your comment was to
elevate one religion above others (or one religion below others), I fail to
see your justification.)
Next, I am struck after a quick read of several of your pages to a
remarkable similarity between your writings and those of Manly Hall
(Journey in Truth, The Secret Teachings of All Ages...). Indeed, I notice
much more a similarity between you and Hall than I do between you and
Pirsig. I do not say this condescendingly, I enjoy reading Hall (indeed,
I've searched high and low for some his rarer publications). I'll have more
to say about this as I re-read your writings more thoroughly.
Finally, as Platt and I argued about earlier, "Freedom", as you both
trumpet it, must rest on statically-latched values. I think this is an
element that is either brushed aside or verbally downplayed in your
thinking. You can not have Dynamic Quality without static quality
underlying it. The balance is akin to the Yin Yang. The balance is what
some members of the forum call the "sweet spot" or "coherence" (as I am
coming to understand it). Crying for "Freedom" without recognizing the
necessary structuration or static-latching that makes certain
possibilities, well, possible is like a flower bemoaning the existence of
soil.
Another "friendly" suggestion would be not to respond to your own writing
with the question: What are we to make of these extraordinary concepts and
postulates? Leave such aggrandizing to the others who review your work. :-)
More later...
Arlo
At 03:33 12/08/2004, you wrote:
>Hello everyone
>
>>From: <hampday@earthlink.net>
>>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>>Subject: Re: MD Proposal to discuss a Metaphysics of Value
>>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:06:44 -0400
>>
>>
>>Received from Dan Glover on Monday, August 09, 2004 2:48 PM
>>Subject: Re: MD Proposal to discuss a Metaphysics of Value
>>
>>
>> > Dear HP
>> >
>> > I'm very disappointed in your essay. I revel in new Pirsig-related
>>writings
>> > so I was looking forward to an intellectual treat. Instead I find a
>>mishmash
>> > of platitudes I've been reading my whole life. As far as I can see your
>> > essay doesn't contain a single original idea. In addition, there is only
>>one
>> > reference to Robert Pirsig, the outtake from his SODV paper, and your
>> > comments on that make it appear as if you've read neither of his books. In
>> > fact, after reading your essay it appears you don't even know how many
>> > "cult" books RMP wrote. Do you? Have you in fact read both ZMM and LILA?
>>If
>> > so, why haven't you revised your essay to reflect that? If not, what are
>>you
>> > doing here?
>>
>>I'm disappointed in you, Dan; and I wouldn't have replied to such a hostile
>>reception
>>except for my curiosity as to what might have provoked it.
>
>Hi Ham
>
>My post wasn't meant to be hostile; I'm afraid you have misread my post.
>You can check the archives for yourself and see that I'm not the foaming
>at the mouth attack dog you imagine. I have it on good authority that Mark
>does bite though so you better watch out for him; you don't want to get
>too close. And remember, you came here asking for opinions. As the old
>saying goes, be careful what you ask for. You just might get it.
>
>Could you tell me more of how it is that I disappoint you? All I've done
>is to be forthcoming though I do realize that can sometimes be upsetting
>if a person's unprepared. Would you rather I lie to you? Or not post to
>you at all? That's easily enough done too. On my part though perhaps it's
>true that I could learn to use expostulation with a little more
>compassion. My apologies if I offend you. That's not my intent.
>
>>Perhaps I'm
>>wrong, but I
>>thought the purpose of a forum was to provide an open discussion of ideas
>>related to
>>the subject at hand -- in this case, a philosophy focusing on Quality.
>
> From the charter of moq.org: The MOQ_DISCUSS mailing list exists to
> provide a general and free-ranging forum for the discussion of Robert M.
> Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality.
>
>That means to me that a person should read the books (2 books, not a great
>deal to ask) before joining the discussion. Despite your protests to the
>contrary I don't believe you have. At least that's the bad taste your
>essay has left in my mouth.
>
>>Inasmuch as my
>>thesis has a similar thrust, although developed from a metaphysical rather
>>than a
>>sociological perspective, it seemed a perfectly appropriate topic for
>>discussion.
>>That is "what I'm doing here"!
>
>You might want to review as well the rest of the moq_discuss rules.
>
>>
>>I'm sorry there were not enough Pirsig quotes in my thesis to whet your
>>intellectual
>>appetite, but, as someone interested in philosophy, I should think you would
>>want to
>>explore other concepts of esthetic reality, which is what MOQ really is. Or
>>are you so
>>bound to a single author that you reject anything that's not constructed on
>>his statements?
>
>Enough Pirsig quotes isn't the problem with your essay. You could fill it
>with Pirsig quotes and it wouldn't help matters. I've read Pirsig-related
>papers without any Pirsig quotes at all, only a mention of his name or his
>books. But I could tell the authors were familiar with his work. You on
>the other hand seem to have no inkling of what RMP is on about. You admit
>as much in your essay.
>
>
>>That is a strange attitude, indeed, for a subsciber to a group whose common
>>quest is for
>>philosophical truth.
>
>You seem to assume since I find your work let's say unoriginal just to be
>polite that I only read Pirsig. Hah! Tell that to my aching back after
>lugging over a hundred boxes containing a collection of 6000+ books from
>one house to the next. I'd cull the collection but most have annotations
>in them and of course one just never knows when a certain book will come
>in handy. Let me tell you sir, that's some heavy reading though. And that
>doesn't count my uncounted books in storage. I could start a serious used
>book store. See, you got me all wrong. You're talking to the kid who read
>dictionaries and encyclopedias for fun. I said I revel in Pirsig-related
>writings which is how you (mis)represented your work hence my
>disappointment. But I read everything I get my hands on. Still, perhaps my
>expectations were too high after reading the last Pirsig-related paper I
>had the pleasure to receive.
>
>>
>>Yes, Dan, I have read "Lila" and most of "ZMM" -- not to qualify for this
>>list, but rather
>>to see how philosophers have dealt with Quality and Value, both of which are
>>of concern
>>to me. (As you've observed, I found the author's paper on "Subjects,
>>Objects, Data and
>>Values" metaphysically more relevant, as well as strong support for my
>>thesis.)
>
>You didn't answer one of my questions. Why haven't you revised your essay
>to reflect what you've read? You badly misinterpret what Robert Pirsig is
>saying in his paper. You might come to understand that by reading LILA.
>And if you've read it I would suggest reading it again. You haven't got it
>yet. Your essay needs work. I might add that the SODV paper is not the
>best source to quote from if you want to understand the MOQ, in my
>opinion, and also from my discussions with him, I presume that of the
>author of the paper himself.
>
>>
>>Fortunately, several of the participants in this discussion have found some
>>intruiguing ideas
>>in my thesis that animosity has apparently prevented your discovering. I
>>sincerely hope
>>that your opinion of me as an "intruder on sacred soil" will change over
>>time.
>
>Please don't think that I see you as an intruder on sacred soil. Everyone
>is welcome here. Well, just about everyone. There might be one or two
>folks who are not welcome. That's not my doing though. But you know what?
>Take my advice and do what I do. Take the criticisms offered by the group
>and use them to better your work. Either that or just go away and sulk.
>That works for me too at times.
>
>>
>>Essentially yours,
>>Ham
>
>Thank you for your comments,
>
>Dan
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
>http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archives:
>Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
>MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 12 2004 - 15:44:12 BST