[MD] Pirsig's idea of the individual

[Ant McWatt]

Ant McWatt stated to Platt August 24th:

>Firstly, you have (yet again) put that weasel word “individual”
>in the phrase “a far cry from the MOQ goal of a morality based
>on intellectual principles of individual freedom”.  However, part
>of the remit in the MOQ (being a Zen Buddhist derived philosophy)
>is to remind us that the concept of “individual” is a convenient fiction
>that needs to be recognized as such to reduce karmic suffering.
>It should therefore be avoided in the context of the MOQ and
>used only with qualification.

Ham commented to Ant August 25th:

I take exception to your statement that “individual” is a “weasel word” -- a
“convenient fiction” -- particularly in the context of  Freedom.  This 
assertion demonstrates once again the failure of Pirsig's philosophy to 
recognize the individuality of human experience, which is fundamental to a 
metaphysical understanding of existence.  By deferring to the Buddhist 
notion of karma to “explain away” the individual, you've brought my 
differences with Eastern mysticism into sharp focus.

Platt then misled Ham back to some SOM fairy land, August 26th 2007:

Somehow I missed Ant's message to me that you quoted above. But lest you get 
the wrong idea from him about Pirsig's “failure to recognize the 
individuality of human experience” let me reassure that he does nothing of 
the sort, referring to the “individual” many times in his writings that 
describes the MOQ, such as:

“The MOQ says it [the individual] is a collection of static patterns capable 
of
apprehending Dynamic Quality.” (Note 130, from Dan Glover’s “Lila’s Child”)

Ant McWatt comments to Ham:

The latter quote of Pirsig’s used by Platt here (Note 130) has been severely 
edited and the two other annotations Pirsig made about the “individual” in 
“Lila’s Child” omitted altogether.  As such, Pirsig’s understanding of the 
individual has been distorted by Platt so in the following, as a 
“corrective”, I have quoted Note 130 in full as well as these two other 
annotations:

[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.”

Critically (and this is what Platt tends to ignore), in Note 77 of Lila’s 
Child, we see that Pirsig confirms that his view of the self concurs with 
the one held by Buddhism:

“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.”

Finally, in the section of “Lila’s Child” titled “Questions and Answers” 
(where Dan clarifies a number of issues with Pirsig including the 
individual), note Pirsig’s answer here:

“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).”

This analogy is explained further by Pirsig in the following quote:

“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.”  (Pirsig to 
McWatt, January 14th 1994)

Best wishes,

Anthony



.

_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Hotmail is here!  http://www.newhotmail.co.uk