Ant McWatt stated to Platt August 24th:
Firstly, you have (yet again) put that weasel word individual
in the phrase a far cry from the MOQ goal of a morality based
on intellectual principles of individual freedom. However, part
of the remit in the MOQ (being a Zen Buddhist derived philosophy)
is to remind us that the concept of individual is a convenient fiction
that needs to be recognized as such to reduce karmic suffering.
It should therefore be avoided in the context of the MOQ and
used only with qualification.
Ham commented to Ant August 25th:
I take exception to your statement that individual is a weasel word -- a
convenient fiction -- particularly in the context of Freedom. This
assertion demonstrates once again the failure of Pirsig's philosophy to
recognize the individuality of human experience, which is fundamental to a
metaphysical understanding of existence. By deferring to the Buddhist
notion of karma to explain away the individual, you've brought my
differences with Eastern mysticism into sharp focus.
Platt then misled Ham back to some SOM fairy land, August 26th 2007:
Somehow I missed Ant's message to me that you quoted above. But lest you get
the wrong idea from him about Pirsig's failure to recognize the
individuality of human experience let me reassure that he does nothing of
the sort, referring to the individual many times in his writings that
describes the MOQ, such as:
The MOQ says it [the individual] is a collection of static patterns capable
of
apprehending Dynamic Quality. (Note 130, from Dan Glovers Lilas Child)
Ant McWatt comments to Ham:
The latter quote of Pirsigs used by Platt here (Note 130) has been severely
edited and the two other annotations Pirsig made about the individual in
Lilas Child omitted altogether. As such, Pirsigs understanding of the
individual has been distorted by Platt so in the following, as a
corrective, I have quoted Note 130 in full as well as these two other
annotations:
[130] The word I like the word self is one of the trickiest words in
any metaphysics. Sometimes it is an object, a human body; sometimes it is a
subject, a human mind. I believe there are number of philosophic systems,
notably Ayn Rands Objectivism, that call the I or individual the
central reality. Buddhists say it is an illusion. So do scientists. The MOQ
says it is a collection of static patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic
Quality. I think that if you identify the I with the intellect and nothing
else you are taking an unusual position that may need some defending.
Critically (and this is what Platt tends to ignore), in Note 77 of Lilas
Child, we see that Pirsig confirms that his view of the self concurs with
the one held by Buddhism:
Its important to remember that both science and Eastern religions regard
the individual as an empty concept. It is literally a figure of speech. If
you start assigning a concrete reality to it, you will find yourself in a
philosophic quandary.
Finally, in the section of Lilas Child titled Questions and Answers
(where Dan clarifies a number of issues with Pirsig including the
individual), note Pirsigs answer here:
The Buddhists would say [the individual] it is certainly central to a
concept of reality but it is not central to or even a part of reality
itself. Enlightenment involves getting rid of the concept of I (small
self) and seeing the reality in which the small self is absent (big self).
This analogy is explained further by Pirsig in the following quote:
The Sioux concept of self and higher self is one I hadnt heard of. At
first sight it seems like a striking confirmation of the universality of
mystic understanding. In Zen Buddhism Big-Self and small-self are
fundamental teaching concepts. The small-self, the static patterns of ego,
is attracted by the perfume of the Big-Self which it senses is around
but cannot find or even identify. (There is a Hindu parable in which a small
fish says, Mother, I have searched everywhere, but I cannot find this thing
they call water). Through suppression of the small-self by meditation or
fasting or vision quests or other disciplines, the Big-Self can be revealed
in a moment sometimes called 180 degrees enlightenment. Then a long
discipline is undertaken by which the Big-Self takes over and dissolves the
small-self into a 360 degrees enlightenment or full Buddhahood. (Pirsig to
McWatt, January 14th 1994)
Best wishes,
Anthony
.
_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
