[MD] subject / object logic

[Arlo Bensinger]

[SA]
Thanks, Arlo, I was looking for a better explanation of pragmatic 
value and philosophic value.

[Arlo]
Here is a brief introductory passage from Ant's "The Role of 
Evolution, Time and Order in Pirsig's MOQ", followed by a passage 
from Pirsig's comments on the paper. I think this should help 
illuminate the difference.

[Ant had written]
Consequently, the MOQ shares the fundamental teaching of Buddhism in 
that an incorrect view of reality is to see a distinct and persistent 
mind and body supporting consciousness where a subject is discerned, 
along with its objects [3]. And that a correct view of reality 
is..."to see no persistent mind or body - no subject - since there 
are no distinct and persistent mind objects available to perception." 
[4] (McWatt)

[Pirsig's reply included this]
"When we speak of an external world guided by evolution it's normal 
to assume that it is really there, is independent of us and is the 
cause of us. The MOQ goes along with this assumption because 
experience has shown it to be an extremely high quality belief for 
our time. But unlike materialist metaphysics, the MOQ does not forget 
that it is still just a belief - quite different from beliefs in the 
past, from beliefs of other present cultures, and possibly from 
beliefs we will all have in the future. What will decide which belief 
prevails is, of course, its quality." (Pirsig)

[Arlo]
Using Pirsig's words, the "self" is "just a belief", a thought, a 
concept. The illusion is the adherence to the notion that the "self" 
is real in some materialist, independent, existentialist sense. But, 
here you see Pirsig's pragmatism, we adhere to the illusion because 
it is "an extremely high quality belief for our time".

Although Ant also touched on this following passage, I think its 
important to restate because it not only captures the fundamental Zen 
Buddhism of the MOQ, but gets right at what Pirsig himself was hoping 
his MOQ would lead, an overcoming of the illusory duality of S/O.

"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 motorcycle 
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." (Pirsig)

I've cautioned that both an over-attachment to the "self" and an 
under-valuation of the "self" are problematic. Pirsig encountered the 
latter in India, where the "illusive" nature of the atom bombs was 
hopeless inadequate. However, in his critique of Western, S/O 
dominated culture, he wrote, "And now he began to see for the first 
time the unbelievable magnitude of what man, when he gained power to 
understand and rule the world in terms of dialectic truths, had lost. 
He had built empires of scientific capability to manipulate the 
phenomena of nature into enormous manifestations of his own dreams of 
power and wealth...but for this he had exchanged an empire of 
understanding of equal magnitude: an understanding of what it is to 
be a part of the world, and not an enemy of it." (Pirsig)

On a closing note, Pirsig had warned in ZMM, "On this trip I think we 
should notice it, explore it a little, to see if in that strange 
separation of what man is from what man does we may have some clues 
as to what the hell has gone wrong in this twentieth century." (Pirsig)

Dan already hit this nail on the head, so I won't belabor the point, 
but this succinct thought from Pirsig is quite important, in many ways.