[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: "Ant McWatt" <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: [MD] Platt's Individual Level
>Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 02:33:43 +0000
>
>Dan G stated June 18th:
>
>>So lets say it's okay to equate the intellectual level with the individual 
>>as long as it's remembered they are both just useful conventions.
>>
>>Thanks for your comments,
>>
>
>Dan,
>
>Good to hear from you.

Hi Ant

Good to hear from you too! Thank you for your comments.

>
>If you read the top of my “Platt's Individual Level” post carefully you 
>will notice that (following Walpola Rahula/ the Buddha…) I state that “A 
>human individual may appear to have a specific and determinate nature (what 
>can be referred to as their social or parikalpita nature)”.

Please forgive me for ignoring that part of your post. Actually I did read 
it quite carefully and simply assumed that the last paragraph captured the 
top of your post quite succinctly. My bad. So. I've copied the rest of your 
post here for more careful consideration:

Ant:

BTW, to answer Platt's question in your post, the reason that Pirsig stated 
that if you assign a concrete reality to the individual "you will find 
yourself in a philosophic quandary" is explained - to some extent - in 
Section 5.6 of my MOQ Textbook i.e.

According to [Walpola] Rahula, the Buddha taught that a clinging to the self 
[i.e. the individual] as real is the primary cause of dukkha (which is 
usually translated as ‘suffering)...

Dan comments:

This "clinging"... what does it entail? For instance: a human being is 
"self" aware but only after growing to a certain age, biologically, 
socially, and intellectually. What does this mean? It appears that only when 
we intellectualize the self do we become self aware. Would you agree?

Ant:

A human individual may appear to have a specific and determinate nature 
(what can be referred to as their social or parikalpita nature).

Dan comments:

Lets break this down a bit: "appear" seems to indicate an idea and relates 
to "specific and determinate" as intellectual knowledge. The intellectual 
level grows out of the social level and of course is never independent of 
it. Yet once set free the intellect goes its own direction often at odds 
with the social level. So even though the human individual may appear to 
have a social nature, it is neither apart or separate from the intellectual 
nature. Would you agree?

Ant:

However, a person is essentially related to the rest of the world and is not 
apart from it.  There are a tremendous number of inter-related chemical, 
biological, social and intellectual processes that operate within and around 
us (such as gravity, the pollination of flowers by insects, the production 
of oxygen by rainforests etc.).  Remove or alter any one of these components 
and the ‘individual’ is affected.

Dan comments:

The MOQ seems to agree with this, yes.

Ant:

This is implied by Nagajuna who states:

"Nothing in the universe can stand by itself – no thing, no face, no being, 
no neo-con and no event – and for this reason it is absurd to single 
anything out as the ideal to be grasped." (Watts, 1957, p.83)

Dan comments:

Exactly! Which reminds me of what I was saying to SA just a while back in 
his Archery thread. Grasping, clinging, goals... these are intellectual 
motions set in place by the cultural mores we grow to learn. Zen seeks 
nothing. Perfection is a by-product of perfect practice, nothing more. No 
target, no arrow, no bow, no individual, no idea...

>As such, it would be incorrect to equate the intellectual level with the 
>individual.   For instance, if you were stranded by yourself on a desert 
>island, the notion of “the individual” would not be a useful convention.  
>It would be a _useless convention_ as would other social value patterns 
>such as money or saying “excuse me” after sneezing!

Or if you were "stranded" in a monastery on top of a mountain... Please 
though - note the phrase: "the notion of the individual." The idea of the 
individual. Hmmm. Can "the individual" exist in any other fashion than a 
notion or an idea? To "kill" the individual is to kill the idea of the 
individual. Therefore, it appears that the concept of the individual and the 
individual cannot stand apart. Would you agree?

>
>Best wishes,
>
>Anthony

And to you as well,

Dan