[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt, and greetings Dan --

Dan has quoted Pirsig (doesn't everyone?) as making a distinction between
everyday Reality as seen by the individual and Ultimate Reality as described
in the language of Buddhism:


RMP:
> "The confusion here seems to result from the two languages of
> Buddhism, the language of the Buddha's world and language of
> everyday life. In the language of everyday life, reality and intellect
> are different. From the language of the Buddha's world, they are the
> same, since there is no intellectual division that governs the Buddha's
> world."

Then he offers a comment on Platt's distinction, for which Platt expresses
gratitude:

Dan:
> What Platt seems to be pointing to with his "individual" level is from
> the language of everyday life. The "individual" is an intellectual
> division of reality, a concept, albeit a central concept of reality.

Platt:
> Exactly. Thanks, Dan. "Absolutes" are also from the language of
> everyday life as Matt pointed out recently. My question to all is,
> "Why shouldn't philosophy use the language of everyday life?"

In the spirit of cooperation here, since I have been accused of rejecting
Pirsig's philosophy, I'd like to suggest than you consider a modification of
Dan's definition of "individual" which would resolve this issue for all of
us.  Dan said that "the 'individual' is an intellectual
division of reality," and this is true for the Buddhist, the Pirsigian, and
the Essentialist.  In other words, what we are all saying is that existence
is a divided reality and that the individual is what divides it.

While there has been a valiant effort on one side to untangle Quality (DQ)
from its inferred levels, there is an equally intensive effort by the other
side to parse DQ into static levels.  Platt has positioned himself on the
latter side.  For the sake of this discussion, if we could eliminate  levels
completely, it might be possible to reach an accord.  Yet it would seem that
the "levels" concept is so ingrained in the MoQ that no one dare not define
anything without resorting to it.

So, in deference to this ideology, what I'm suggesting is that there are TWO
levels of reality:
Ultimate (absolute) Reality and Differentiated (relative) Reality.  The
'individual' represents the differentiated level.  From the individual
perspective reality is a relativistic system in which all things are divided
from each other in time and space.  We can categorize physical things (that
is, experienced objects) into Biological and Inorganic "sub-levels", if we
wish, just as we can classify mankind collectively as either Social or
Evolutionary beings.  We can even consider Intellect as the evolutionary or
historical development of ideas.

But there two classifications that our common philosophy does not allow us
to make.

We cannot categorize Intellect as non-human, and we cannot categorize
Individual as a physical thing.  It follows from this perspective that all
aesthetic values, like Beauty, Goodness, and Morality belong under Intellect
because they are relative (proprietary) to Individual awareness.  All
existential entities, such as atoms, trees, planets, and organisms, are
universal and belong under the category of "objects experienced".   It's my
own opinion that the confusion daily demonstrated in the MD has resulted
from the author's violation of both of these cardinal principles.

Does anybody agree?

Dan has posed another leading question:
> By changing the meaning of moral from the language of
> everyday life so that it applied to atoms and ants, did Pirsig
> make a fatal mistake in preventing his philosophy from
> gaining wide acceptance?
>
> Having said this, Rahula (1959, p.55)  makes it very clear that it's
> not incorrect to 'use such expressions in our daily life as 'I', 'you',
> 'being', 'individual', etc' as long as it is remembered that the self
> (like anything else conceptualised) is just a useful convention.
>
> So let's say it's okay to equate the intellectual level with the
> individual as long as it's remembered they are both just useful
> conventions.

Platt responds:
> Right on, Dan. I'll buy that! From now on, no matter what
> anybody says, remember it's all just "useful conventions." :-)

Who is this Rahula fellow?  It would be fascinating to meet a Buddhist so
enlightened by Nirvana that he considers his physical reality only a "useful
convention".  Out of this world, man!

Essentially yours,
Ham