[MD] subject / object logic

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu>:

> [Platt]
> What Arlo fails to say is that the author makes a 
> distinction between real and imaginary selves, and states a warning
> 
> [Arlo]
> Arlo didn't fail to point out anything. I simply 
> referenced an article I thought was interesting 
> and related to the topic being discussed. Since 
> the link led to the full text, and I assume 
> everyone is capable of left-clicking on a link, nothing was hidden here.

Why cite the reference unless the implication was to support your view
that "self" is imaginary, the topic of discussion? 

> [Platt]
> "But if we have lost reality in the process, we 
> shall have struck a poor bargain." (from aforementioned article).
> 
> [Arlo]
> As I said, the concept of self, although 
> illusory, brings great pragmatic rewards. Seems I already echoed this caution.
> 
> [Platt]
> Dangerous? How so?. If there are no selves, who can pose a threat?
> 
> [Arlo]
> Does a volcano pose a threat? Does it have a "self"?

Since when is a volcano referred to as a "who?" Or a "self?"

> [Platt]
> This reference contains the following caveat:
> 
> [Arlo]
> Ah, you've proven you can click on a link like I 
> would have assumed. Excellent! Although I take it 
> you skipped over anything and everything to find 
> only that related to the "controversy", so that 
> you can smugly sit back and feel good that you 
> have debunked the Buddhist notion of anatta.
> 
> Certainly it is controversial. And as I said I am 
> not expert in Buddhism. Maybe some of the more 
> knowledgeable among us can chime in on this concept.

Whether I "smugly sit back and feel good" is irrelevant to the discussion.
Your character attack simply reflects the tactics of moveon.org. So it comes as
no surprise.   

> [Platt]
> Seems I am not alone in questioning the illusory 
> self. Some far smarter than me also judge this truth to be of low quality.
> 
> [Arlo]
> The concept of self allows great pragmatic 
> reward. Attaching too greatly to this concept is 
> as low quality as detaching from it too greatly.
> 
> Pirsig noticed this in ZMM.
> 
> "But one day in the classroom the professor of 
> philosophy was blithely expounding on the 
> illusory nature of the world for what seemed the 
> fiftieth time and Phædrus raised his hand and 
> asked coldly if it was believed that the atomic 
> bombs that had dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki 
> were illusory. The professor smiled and said yes. 
> That was the end of the exchange.
> 
> Within the traditions of Indian philosophy that 
> answer may have been correct, but for Phædrus and 
> for anyone else who reads newspapers regularly 
> and is concerned with such things as mass 
> destruction of human beings that answer was 
> hopelessly inadequate. He left the classroom, left India and gave up." (ZMM)
> 
> But that didn't lead Pirsig into a 
> no-holds-barred embrace of the self in the other 
> direction. Instead, balance is achieved by dismissing both extreme attachments.
> 
> "Zen Buddhists talk about "just sitting," a 
> meditative practice in which the idea of a 
> duality of self and object does not dominate 
> one's consciousness. What I'm talking about here 
> in motorcyele maintenance is "just fixing," in 
> which the idea of a duality of self and object 
> doesn't dominate one's consciousness. When one 
> isn't dominated by feelings of separateness from 
> what he's working on, then one can be said to 
> "care" about what he's doing. That is what caring 
> really is, a feeling of identification with what 
> one's doing. When one has this feeling then he 
> also sees the inverse side of caring, Quality 
> itself. ... So the thing to do when working on a 
> motorcycle, as in any other task, is to cultivate 
> the peace of mind which does not separate one's 
> self from one's surroundings. " (ZMM)

I've already commented on this passage where the self is acknowledged as real. 




-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/