Hi SA: > Platt,
> [SA previously] > > > Arlo, this quote below defines what individual is, > > > thank you. A fictitious convenience as Pirsig > > notes > > > below. Sure I say individual, he, she, etc..., > > and it > > > is "...remembered that they're terms for > > collections > > > of patterns and not some independent primary > > reality > > > of their own." Platt, why the hang-up? What are > > you > > > trying to hold onto so tightly? Platt, this quote > > > defines individual, and then moves on to use > > > individual as a convenient fiction. I see static > > > patterns as fiction thus truth, thereby, avoiding > > the > > > hang-up of believing static patterns are The > > Truth, > > > don't forget about dynamic quality. > > > [Platt] > > I don't consider individuals such as yourself to be > > "fictitious conveniences." > > I value you as an "independent reality" whose > > individuality brings much > > high quality to my experience. I can imagine the > > look on the faces of your > > staff if you told them they were simply figments of > > your imagination. No. You > > and they are as real as life and love and beauty and > > death. And that's The > > Truth. :-) > > How can I be The Truth? There is you, too, as > well as mountains and rivers. I think you can be The Truth just as much as your assertion that "There is you, too, as well as mountains and rivers" is the Truth. There are many "The Truths." And that's "The Truth" :-) > As much as you like to say, "And Pirsig says this > so it must be the MoQ.", your veering from what Pirsig > says on this issue, which to completely Pirsig would > be mistake I'd admit. If this was such a big deal for Pirsig he would have devoted a chapter or two on it in Lila. But you're right. Pirsig would approve veering from what he says on an issue. He doesn't hold himself out to be a guru who has all the answers. > How can I be an "independent reality"? I > co-exist with you, too, as well as mountains and > rivers. If you "co-exist," there must be something else to exist with -- me, a mountain, a river, etc. A whole consist of parts. One is only known by the many. Both exist. Both are real. Like the song says, "You can't have one without the other." > Dq is sq. The mountains are really mountains and > the rivers are really rivers. I am really I, and > staff are really staff. You bet your life. :-). >Yet, this stage of > understanding commented upon by Dogen and Pirsig is a > pragmatic reality where we are part of web as Chief > Joseph of the Nez Perce mentioned. I think it's more pragmatic to act on the assumption that I better get out of the way of that independently real truck bearing down on independently real me. Don't you agree? Platt 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/
