[MD] Pirsig's idea of the individual

[Heather Perella]

This was a very good post I thought.  (I've skipped several posts that I've saved.  Just posting another that currently catches my eye.)


--- On Thu, 8/30/07, Ant McWatt <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> From: Ant McWatt <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk>
> Subject: [MD]  Pirsig's idea of the individual
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Date: Thursday, August 30, 2007, 4:40 AM
> 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