[MD] Social Imposition ?

[Platt Holden]

Hi Marsha:

> On the other hand, it sounds like to equate man with "individual" or
> "self" is also a problem:
> 
> On self:  The MOQ, as I understand it, denies any existence of a 
> "self" that is independent of inorganic, biological, social or 
> intellectual patterns.  There is no "self" that contains these 
> patterns.  These patterns contain the self.  This denial agrees with
> both religion mysticism and scientific knowledge.  In Zen, there is
> reference to "big self" and "small self,"  Small self is the patterns. 
> Big self is Dynamic Quality.  (Annotation 29, p.64)

Somewhat hard to fathom since in Lila Pirsig constantly refers to
"himself" and repeatedly uses such terms as "herself," "yourself," and 
"itself" while making occasional references to "self-assurance," "self-
evident," "self-conscious," etc. I  wouldn't disagree with his 
contention that the patterns contain the self, but in doing so he 
acknowledges that the "self" -- both small and big -- exists, as he 
does many times in Lila.   

> On individual:  "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 a philosophic quandary."  (Annotation 77,
> p.250)
> 
> How would define your use of the word 'man'?

By "man" I mean "humanity."

Assigning "concrete reality" to anything in the MOQ is a bit dicey 
except for pure experience. Concepts such as "individual," "science," 
and Eastern religions," are all secondary intellectual patterns. All  
lack "concrete reality."

Further, what is an "empty concept?" The only such concept I know is 
the concept "nothing."

Science largely rejects individuals because it is "system" oriented and 
tends to ignore the occasional anomaly when an individual within a 
system acts out of the ordinary.

The question comes back to the need of thought to divide the concrete 
reality of pure experience which is, as you know, indivisible. There is 
no separation between experiencer and the experienced. We are so 
wrapped up in our world of thoughts that in dividing reality in order 
to be able to think we forget we have divided it, then forget we have 
forgotten it. The "Big Self" referred to above is the indivisible, 
omnipresent reality of pure experience. Little "self" is a concept 
resulting from thought-slicing. Such thoughts "exist," but have no 
concrete reality.

Only when totally absorbed, such as when painting, do we become fully 
aware of "concrete reality." But only in hindsight.

But, I could be wrong.

Platt