From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Aug 13 2004 - 02:44:46 BST
Ham in response to Arlo Bensinger's message of Thursday, August 12
Re: MD Proposal to discuss a Metaphysics of Value/Horsepucky???
> 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".
Greetings, Arlo, and thanks for the caviat. Do you really feel that Dan and
Mark
"disagree with my thesis as a whole"? I would like to think that their
jibes and
challenges are a defensive tactic which would indicate some interest in what
I
have to say. On the other hand, I think that we may all be too quick to
"agree"
or "disagree" with a particular concept, as opposed to giving it some
pre-reactive
consideration. At least, this is what I'm trying to do in the case of
Pirsig's MOQ
whose logic and conventions are still somewhat strange to me.
> 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.
Okay. Let's get the politics out of the way, since it seems to be creating
some
static in this discussion and it's not what Essentialism is about. The
"Values"
commentary on my website is a recent addition aimed at getting more viewers.
Since I've made no particular attempt to hide my socio-political "leanings"
in
selecting material for the thesis, it will be apparent to most readers that
I take
a conservative position on many issues. While I see a connection here
between
individual freedom and political conservatism, it's not critical to the main
thesis
and I don't expect everyone to share it. In fact, I see no reason why a
liberal
can not, or should not, be an essentialist.
> (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.)
Arlo, I have just read an excellent book on the history of fundamentalism by
Karen Armstrong, whom many consider an expert on this topic. The title of
her
NY Times bestseller is "The Battle for God", and I commend it to you. There
is
no question but that religious fundamentalism -- including the
Christian-motivated
Crusades of the Middle Ages -- has played a major role in bringing
civilization to its present predicament. One problem here is that because
we
now regard "fundamentalism" as pejorative, its root word meaning has lost
significance. We all aim for a fundamental belief system, whether religious
or
philosophical. (Pirsig might have included this goal under Dynamic
Quality.)
I'm not an advocate for any religion; but I fear that we may have thrown the
babe out with the bathwater in refusing to accept concepts that may have a
"spiritual" or "esthetic" aspect..
> 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.
I am not acquainted with this writer or his Teachings.
> 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.
I'm only recently acquainted with Pirsig's ontology, but I can't imagine
Freedom
as anything but a divine gift to man. Latching this concept to "static"
Quality
would seem to be a rejection of teleology. (I definitely recall Pirsig
mentioning
teleology as an ongoing process of the DQ type.)
> 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.
:-)
I take your point, Arlo. My intended meaning was more toward "unusual", as
in
"extra-ordinary". But if you could you suggest a less "self-aggrandizing"
term,
I'll use it.
And thanks for the critique.
Ham
> >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 : Fri Aug 13 2004 - 03:07:31 BST