[MD] The illusion that is subject

[Kevin Perez]

Hello Ron.
 
> does "one-ness" mean the abscence of opposites 
> for if there were no opposites
> there would be no change
> no value
> no-thing
> does "one-ness" mean no-thing-ness?
>  
> is it that the subject is an illusion?
 
For me, oneness is not the absence of opposites, its the resolution
or reconciliation or synthesis of opposites.  In life this almost always
involves paradox.  From life or death to life from death.  From
surrender or freedom to freedom through surrender.  From pain and
suffering or pleasure and happiness to happiness amid the suffering.
>From self or community to the realization that we are nothing apart
from our relationships and our interactions.
 
Pirsig considered a question and experienced something significant.
The question and the experience synthesized, for Pirsig, the monism
of Quality.  Afterward he was moved to develop a metaphysics and
define reality as a duality of dynamic effects and static patterns.
Both experiences were driven by questions; what is quality? and
which is best?  But the answers couldn't have been more different.
 
As I see it, the answer to the first question, what is quality, lead to an
awareness of the oneness of reality.  The answer to the second
question, which is best, lead to the illusion of reality as separate and
fragmented.  The only thing the answers had in common is that they
were in each case exactly what Pirsig was looking for.  And so there
exists, at least in the person of Robert M. Pirsig, a synthesis of
both answers.
 
For me, The illusion is reality as separate and fragmented, life as
isolated and subjects and objects as primary and interaction as
secondary.  Pirsig had it right when he said the Quality event is the
source.  Reality is nothing but events.  It's all interaction.  If the
interaction is anywhere it's in the space between things.
 

Kevin

 
---------------------------------
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.