Arlo pointed out to Christoffer Ivarsson March 12th 2008:
> Pirsig has also talked about how ZMM was not seen as such a > monumentous
> book in Japan because their culture did not have the > sharp S/O dualism, and
> so "they got it" and saw the book as pretty > much common sense. (This was on
> Ant's website at one point, I can > find the link if you want).
Ant McWatt:
Arlo, here's the quote you were thinking of:
“The hardest thing for me to deal with since the publication of Lila has been
the complete disbelief of many that quality is or can be anything real… The
solution to this cultural resistance to the MOQ may come from the Orient where
quality is a central reality. But there the problem is reversed. A famous
Japanese Zen Master [Dainin Kategiri Roshi] who read ZMM told me he thought it
was a nice book but he didn’t see anything unusual in it. He was quite puzzled
at its success. Another Japanese tourist to America said, ‘This book is not
interesting to Japanese people because we already know all of this.’
Schopenhauer said that truth is that short interval between the time an idea is
a heresy and the time it is a platitude, but the MOQ has managed to be both a
heresy and a platitude simultaneously, depending on which culture you view it
from.” (Letter from Robert Pirsig to Anthony McWatt, December 24th 1995)
http://www.robertpirsig.org/Intro.htm
> This is why Einstein considered the "I" an "optical delusion of >
> consciousness". With the advent of intellectuality, we have the > advent of
> the "I", but we also have different metaphysical responses > to that "I", and
> one is the S/O dualism that underscored western > intellectual development.
> This is why I disagree with Bo, I don't > think the intellectual level is
> inherently SOL, I think it can be but > that depends on the social-cultural
> foundations upon which it is > built (this underscores the totality of
> intellectual patterns, not > just the "self" pattern).
On this point (as well many others!) I'd tend to agree with Arlo though I'm
always interested in what Bodvar has got to say,
Best wishes,
Anthony
> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:35:19 -0400> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [MD] Zen> > [Chris]> Because if you think about it,
> the logic that we have built and that > is based on this idea of subjects and
> objects grows naturally from > this point - when people starts to make this
> distinction.> > [Arlo]> I think there are undeniable global similarities from
> the moment > where symbols became contemplatable "things-in-themselves".
> Written > language is one, the codification of symbols into an abstract, but
> > logical, system. The "self" is another, as I don't think you can > point to
> any post-intellectual culture and see an absense of "what am > I?, why am I
> here?", fundamental philosophical questions. Following > this is a
> codification of laws, and the desire to "record history". > All these things
> owe their origins to the moment when symbols became > objects to be analyzed
> themselves.> > [Chris]> Now, I also think that the variations in how this
> rationality is > constructed has to do with the development of the social
> level, and > how strong it is.> > [Arlo]> Again, absolutely. The "I" varies
> from culture to culture. Pirsig > describes this in ZMM. "Thus, in cultures
> whose ancestry includes > ancient Greece, one invariably finds a strong
> subject-object > differentiation because the grammar of the old Greek mythos
> presumed > a sharp natural division of subjects and predicates. In cultures
> such > as the Chinese, where subject-predicate relationships are not rigidly
> > defined by grammar, one finds a corresponding absence of rigid >
> subject-object philosophy." (ZMM)> > Pirsig has also talked about how ZMM was
> not seen as such a > monumentous book in Japan because their culture did not
> have the > sharp S/O dualism, and so "they got it" and saw the book as pretty
> > much common sense. (This was on Ant's website at one point, I can > find
> the link if you want).> > This is why Einstein considered the "I" an "optical
> delusion of > consciousness". With the advent of intellectuality, we have the
> > advent of the "I", but we also have different metaphysical responses > to
> that "I", and one is the S/O dualism that underscored western > intellectual
> development. This is why I disagree with Bo, I don't > think the intellectual
> level is inherently SOL, I think it can be but > that depends on the
> social-cultural foundations upon which it is > built (this underscores the
> totality of intellectual patterns, not > just the "self" pattern).>
_________________________________________________________________
Share what Santa brought you
https://www.mycooluncool.com
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/
