> Platt was talking to Ron Kulp September 17th: > > Admittedly I haven't been following your discussion with SA and David all > that closely, but for what it's worth I agree with the thrust of your > argument here. As I've argued with Ant, it seems that some here as well as > Pirsig will bring the mystic viewpoint into the conversation when it seems > to suit them > > Ant McWatt comments: > > Platt, > > Interesting, so where exactly do you think Pirsig brings the mystic > viewpoint into the conversation when it seems just to suit him?
As pointed out several times, the "mystic viewpoint" of self is not mentioned in Lila. Rather the self is described as essential to evolution: "A tribe can change its values only person by person and someone has to be first." In fact, the whole book is based on the question, "Does Lila (the person) have Quality?" I also pointed out the many times the concept of "individual" is highlighted in Lila. No hint of it being an illusion there. But in Lila's Child Pirsig finds it convenient to cite the mystic idea of the illusory self for reasons not clear. (He seems to deny there is such a experience as self-consciousness.) If the illusory self was a big deal in understanding the MOQ, he would have included it in the main body of his work. > I think you actually meant to say As I've tried to avoid arguing with Ant > (and S-A), it seems that less enlightened people (in relation to world > poverty, global warming, etc.) will often ignore the mystic viewpoint as it > suits their selfish lifestyle to do so. So now enlightenment and the mystic viewpoint is concerned with world poverty and global warming? How convenient for you radical left-wingers. The Buddha is on your side. Believe that and I'll tell you another fairy story to go along with "self.". > Platt continued his propaganda: > > While at the same time denying that the mystic viewpoint is of much use in > the "everyday world" where we ride motorcycles, drink beer and pick up bar > ladies (assuming we're not married of course). What I say is propaganda. What you say is enlightened. Ah, such arrogance. should be bottled and sold. It would be such a help to the world's losers. > Ant McWatt comments: > > I hadnt noticed that assuming were not married qualification in ZMM > before. Youll also have to point that out to me Platt. :-) Anyway, the > mystic or Dynamic viewpoint is useful because, for example, it helps us see > that everything is all inter-related so deters one from picking-up a bar > lady when married because if everyone behaved that way, family stability > (and hence wider society) would eventually be undermined. You don't need the mystic or Dynamic viewpoint for that moral law. It's straight out of Kant -- the first formulation of his categorical imperative. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant) Seems you attribute the MOQ with new insights when you find it convenient to do so. > Mr Self-righteous continued: > > I don't know about [those evil Buddhist monks, left-wing academics and > hippies] but the everyday world to me is the "real" world where I live, > love, paint and will eventually depart from. The mystic world of drugs, > dreams and illusions is all very well if living in a monastery is your idea > of the good life. How can I be Mr. Self-righteous? The self doesn't exist. Remember? > Ant McWatt comments: > > So thats what all those monks are up to? Book me in! > > Platt continued his self-righteous lecture: > > Personally, like Pirsig, I'd rather be on an expensive boat cruising down > the Hudson River eating steak and, when arriving in NYC, staying at the Ritz > Plaza using money I've earned from my books. > > Ant McWatt comments: > > Personally, like Pirsig, I dont see someone having an expensive yacht > cruising down the Hudson River eating steak etc., from their own hard work > and, on the other hand, being a mystic, having dreams and tools to reach > more enlightened states as mutually exclusive. The MOQ good life has a > balance of both static and Dynamic elements to it. To "reach for more enlightened states" is nonsense. In case you don't know, Quality is direct everyday experience. Or in the words of Shankara: "As Brahman constitutes a person's Self it is not something to be attained by that person. And even if Brahman were altogether different from a person's Self, still it would not be something to be attained; for as it is omnipresent it is part of its nature that it is ever present to everyone." > Platt concluded: > > In any case, you are not alone in your assessment of "reality." Sometimes > it's good to know you are not the only one who has no doubt that he is > planted firmly on the seat of a speeding bike while enjoying the beauty of a > passing scene. > > Ant McWatt comments: > > Then suddenly Ron wakes up and realises he was just dreaming > > Good dream though. Hopefully in Ron's dream he doesn't get spattered by a non-existent truck. 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/
