MRB said: Ayn Rand and her Objectivists - who, in Bob's terms, attempt to tame DQ by making it as SQ as possible - have a very handy tool for looking at these hoary concepts, like free will: ask yourself, what in reality (which includes our relation to it) gives rise to the concept? Why is it needed in order to understand something? It's a very useful "razor." Free will seems to arise to distinguish how our consciousness operate as opposed to the more mechanical sorts of causation, as with Aristotle's moving cause.
dmb says: I think Pirsig's view is approximately the opposite. He might say Rand's Objectivism is a very hoary way of looking at handy concepts. With respect to the self, he says Rand's view is at odds with science, Buddhism and the MOQ. Here's some evidence for your edification and amusement... [Lila's Child, note 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 Rand’s ‘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.” [Note 77 of Lila’s Child] “It’s 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.” In the section of “Lila’s Child” titled “Questions and Answers” Pirsig says: “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).” “The Sioux concept of self and higher self is one I hadn’t 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.” ( A letter from Pirsig to McWatt, January 14th 1994) 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/md/archives.html
